Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14645/2019dismissed

Deepak Seth v. The State Of Bihar

2019-04-11Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14645 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2018 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== DEEPAK SETH Son of Ramanand Seth Resident of Village - Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District - Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the application in course of the day.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 498(A), 504, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but charge-sheet has been submitted under section 304B and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is of committing torture and thereafter caused death of the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14645 of 2019(3) dt.11-04-2019 2/2 the petitioner is in custody since 27.4.2018 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. At the alleged time of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The deceased is said to have committed suicide. The body of deceased was recovered after breaking open the door of the room. The marriage is said to have taken place in the year 2013. Hence, no offence under Section 304B IPC is made out. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R/complaint case. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The onus is on him to explain the cause of death. There is no material in the case diary to show that the deceased has committed suicide. Hence, it is not a case for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/- U T