Mukesh Paswan @ Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20257 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -296 Year- 2015 Thana -BARAUNI District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Mukesh Paswan @ Mukesh Kumar, son of Siyaram Paswan, .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody in connection with Barauni P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

The petitioner is husband of the victim lady Chandna Kumari, who died within two years of marriage in her matrimonial house in unnatural circumstances by sustaining burn injury. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same soon before death.

Submission of the petitioner is that the allegation is based on complaint petition. Witnesses examined before police stated that the victim met with an accidental death while she was cooking food and the stove burst. Moreover, in the cremation the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20257 of 2017 (3) dt.20-06-2017 2/2 family members of the deceased had participated and just to pressurize this false case has been lodged. He further submits that there is statement of the victim also recorded by the police wherein she had not alleged anything against anyone. To counter the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the informant submits that the doctor has found 90% burn injury. Hence, in absence of medical certificate of mental and physical fitness of the deceased, to give statement, and in absence of any statement recorded by the Magistrate the same appears to be a cooked up matter. Moreover, other family members of deceased have supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same before death of the victim.

Considering the aforesaid prima facie material against the petitioner and the presumption against the petitioner of commission of dowry death, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused. If the trial is not concluded within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner may renew the prayer for bail before the court-below itself.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T