Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10449/2017dismissed

Ranjay Sah @ Ranjay Kumar @ Ranjay v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-23Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10449 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2016 Thana -NAUTAN District- SIWAN ====================================================== RANJAY SAH @ RANJAY KUMAR @ RANJAY S/o Nand Kishor Sah R/o Village-Murarpatti, P.S.-Nautan, District-Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of bail in connection with S.Tr. No.498/2016 arising out of Nautan P.S.Case No.80 of 2016, G.r. No.2471 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is husband of the deceased and no case is made out under Section 304B of the IPC as he had taken her at Siwan for treatment and thereafter at Gorakhpur but she died later on. The petitioner is in custody for about seven months.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that no document as stated by the petitioner is available in the case, as such veracity of the same can not be tested

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10449 of 2017 (3) dt.23-03-2017 2/2 at this moment. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture against the petitioner and the cause of death is under unnatural circumstances.

Having heard both sides and in view of submission as stated above and seriousness of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is in custody for about seven months, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it preferably within a period of one year and if not concluded, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court concerned itself, who will pass appropriate order on the basis of materials available before him at that time.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U