Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2652/2016dismissed

Chandan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-04Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2652 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -68 Year- 2012 Thana -BHAGWANPUR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Chandan Mahto, Son of Sri Chaturi Mahto, .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-02-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim is languishing in custody since 9.10.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 304B, 498A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.68/2012 pending before learned CJM, Vaishali at Hajipur The accusation is of killing the daughter of the informant within four years of marriage for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim committed suicide for which U.D.Case No.7 of 2012 was registered at the behest of the petitioner. Subsequently,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2652 of 2016 (3) dt.04-02-2016 2/2 the present FIR has been registered.

Considering the nature of accusation, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the application for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Perused the report of the learned 3rd Additional District Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur received thorugh letter no.6/2016 dated 01.02.2016 which reflects that the charges have been framed but no witnesses have been examined and conclusion of trial is expected within a period of nine months. It is expected from the learned court below to make all efforts to conclude the trial within a period of nine months. However, if the trial will not be concluded within a period of nine months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail.

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