Guli Mahato @ Guli Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23547 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2014 Thana -KUCHAIKOTE District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Guli Mahato @ Guli Mahto Son of Dhurandhar Mahto resident of VillageBantail P.S.- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Angad Kunwar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Pd. (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2015 Heard both sides The petitioner seeks bail in a case under Sections 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner and within one year of her marriage, the wife of the petitioner was killed and her dead body was disposed of. It is submitted that the petitioner is, of course, the husband of the deceased but the fact is that the wife died due to electrocution. The petitioner the father and other relatives of the deceased but nobody turned up and thereafter the dead body was cremated. Postmortem of the dead body was not held. During the course of investigation, the witnesses have also stated that the victim died due to electrocution, but it appears that the father of the deceased made very specific allegation that the petitioner was torturing his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23547 of 2015 (3) dt.12-08-2015 2/2 wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and Suganti Devi, the wife of the petitioner, was killed within one year of her marriage and her dead body was hurriedly cremated. Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 29 of 2014. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt / production of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the above stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail firstly in the trial court itself. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T