Vikash Kumar @ Vicky v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13561 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -72 Year- 2014 Thana -MOKAMAH District- PATNA ====================================================== Vikash Kumar @ Vicky S/o Chandrachur Singh, Resident of villageMokama (Moldimar Tola), P.O.+P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shally Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.M.Rahman(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03/ 02-07-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner being the husband of the one of the victim is languishing in custody since 11.07.2014 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accusation is of killing the pregnant daughter of the informant along with minor daughter after four years of the marriage for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim went to take bath in the river and there she drowned as a result she died. It is further submitted that in the FIR it is alleged that the marriage was performed in 2009 but
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13561 of 2015 (03) dt.02-07-2015 2/2 actually the marriage was performed in 2007, hence, the case does not come within the purview of section 304B IPC, It is submitted by learned APP after going through the case diary that one of the witnesses had seen the petitioner assaulting the victims.
Considering the nature of accusation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 72 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barh, Patna. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Let the trial be expedited.
However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T