Murli Sah @ Murli Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54337 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -177 Year- 2014 Thana -KHAGARIA District- KHAGARIA ====================================================== Murli Sah @ Murli Kumar Sah S/o Shyam Bihari Sah Resident of VillageKadrabhad, P.s Bachhbara, District Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04/ 20-07-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 177 of 2014 (Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2014) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge3rd, Khagaria. The accusation is of killing the sister of the informant within one year of marriage for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The husband of the victim confessed that this petitioner being his brother-in-law and other caught hold of the victim when the husband of the victim throttled her by putting towel (Gamchha) around her neck. The sari of the victim and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54337 of 2015 (4) dt.20-07-2016 towel with which the victim was throttled were recovered from the house of the petitioner on the confession of the husband of the victim.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the other accused, whose name sprang up on the confession of the husband of the victim, namely, Chhatish Mahto and Arjun Kumar have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 30893 of 2014 and 49946 of 2014. The report of the learned trial court dated 02.04.2016 reflects that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the matter is fixed for hearing on F.S.L. report for 05.04.2016 and the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of one month.
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere. If the trial has not been concluded as yet it is expected from the learned trial court to conclude the same expeditiously.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T