Amarjit Prajapati @ Amarjit @ Mantu Prajapati v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2269 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -43 Year- 2012 Thana -IMAMGANJ District- GAYA ====================================================== Amarjit Prajapati @ Amarjit @ Mantu Prajapati Son of Ram Khelawan Prajapati Resident of Village-chhotki Parasia, Police station - Imamganj, District Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushotam Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kr.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04/ 08-02-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim has renewed the prayer for bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accusation is of killing the daughter of the informant after few months of the marriage.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 07.01.2015. The victim died all of sudden and the information was given to the informant side but the FIR was lodged with fifteen days delay.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2269 of 2016 (4) dt.08-02-2017 2/2 petitioner is the husband of the victim who was killed within few months of the marriage and there is specific accusation of demand of rupee fifty thousand and on non-fulfillment of the same torture was inflicted.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the report of learned SDJM, Sherghati dated 23.09.2016 as well as the report of learned VIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gaya dated 16.12.2016 which reflects that the charge has been framed and it will take nine months' time to conclude the trial, if the prosecution witnesses are being produced in time.

In view of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to revise its earlier order.

It is expected from the S.S.P., Gaya to produce the witnesses promptly in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 43 of 2012.

Let the order be transmitted to the learned trial court as well as S.S.P., Gaya.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T