Dharmendra Prasad @ Bhutali Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8755 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -126 Year- 2013 Thana -HILSA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Dharmendra Prasad @ Bhutali Ram son of Rudal @ Rudal Ram, resident of village- Hajipur, Police Station Nagarnausa, District Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 126 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly petitioner being the husband of the informant, after birth of three daughters started her assaulting, abusing and torturing for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry by way of Rs. 50,000 and ultimately informant and three daughters were brought at Ekangar Sarai and in the house of Lakhan Prasad, they were kept and on 23.03.2013 the petitioner went away with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8755 of 2015 (3) dt.10-04-2015 2/2 younger daughter and gave threats through mobile that he has killed the daughter and after return he would kill the other two daughters and the informant also and then the case has been lodged.

Submission is of false implication and that the informant wants to take share in the house and property and there was no such occurrence. The younger daughter died naturally at Ekangar Sarai and taking advantage of the situation, the informant has alleged to give colour in the case. The petitioner is rotting in custody since 23.12.2014 and he deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail by submitting that petitioner has killed the younger daughter and if he will be released, he will kill the other two daughters and informant also as he has caused threats in that regard. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering allegation against the petitioner serious in nature, this court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, accordingly such prayer stands rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months in view of the seriousness of the offence.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) sushma/- U T