Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48537 of 2014 (07) dt.01-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48537 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -103 Year- 2013 Thana -AKHODHIGOLA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Sunil Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shakir Ahmad (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 01-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Within two years of marriage, deceased was done to death at her Sasural and her dead body had already been disposed of. Furthermore, there happens to be allegation of persistent demand of dowry followed with torture on that very score by the informant, father of deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses, who happens to be co-villager, have stated that petitioner, who happens to be a gambler and on account thereof, was regularly torturing the deceased to provide money for gambling, ultimately cost her life and on account thereof, instant case will not fall within the purview of Section 304B of the I.P.C. Furthermore, petitioner happens to be under custody since

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48537 of 2014 (07) dt.01-07-2015 09.09.2013. Therefore, he be released on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the villagers, who ever been examined are not an eye witness to occurrence rather are hearsay. Furthermore, being a co-villager, aforesaid conduct was but natural. Apart from the fact that petitioner happens to be husband of deceased, he on his own has not explained death of deceased which occurred at his house. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner for bail is rejected. The learned lower Court is directed to expedite the trial and must conclude the same within a year. Simultaneously, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas is directed to produce all the remaining prosecution witnesses to facilitate conclusion of trial within a year.

Office to communicate upon the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas. In case, trial is not concluded within a year, then in that event, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the learned Court below.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T