Bhartendu Kumar Mehta @ Bhartendu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2212 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2016 Thana -CHAKAMHESI District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Bhartendu Kumar Mehta @ Bhartendu Kumar, S/o Hare Krishna Mehta, R/o village - Malinagar, P.S. Chakmehsi, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rina Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner seeks bail in Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 14/16 instituted under sections 304B, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is husband of the deceased. There is specific allegation against this petitioner that after performing marriage with the daughter of the informant on 4.6.2016, he and his family members used to commit torture with her for demand of motorcycle etc. The daughter of the informant told all the incidents to the informant on telephone. The informant tried to console his daughter and told that he will come in Holi but on 25.2.2016 he came to know that his daughter is serious and later on it was learnt that his daughter has been done to death and, her

dead body has been disposed off.

Counsel for the informant submitted that neither any post-mortem was performed nor any information was given to the family members of the deceased before cremation of the victim girl (since deceased).

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that witnesses have stated in paras 3,4 and 12 of the case diary about torture and altercation done by the petitioner with the deceased. The informant refers to para 3 and submits that other witnesses in paras 5, 6 and 12 have supported the prosecution case to the effect that the dead body was found hanging in a room, which was brought down. Witnesses in paras 60-61 have stated that relatives of the victim had also arrived on the date of occurrence. But even these witnesses in paras 60-61 have not stated that family members of the deceased have participated in cremation of the deceased. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and death has occurred within 7-8 months of the marriage in the Sasural itself by hanging which is unnatural. There is specific allegation that this petitioner used to commit torture for demand of dowry. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to

renew his prayer for bail after nine months, if no substantive progress is made in the trial.

(Sanjay Priya, J) Ravi/- U T