Dil Khush @ Gulam Rabbani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21688 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -118 Year- 2016 Thana -DAGARUA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Dil Khush @ Gulam Rabbani Son of Abadin Jarra @ Jainul Abadin, Resident of Village- Sakrail, P.S.- Dagarua, District- Patan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Dagarwa P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is husband of the deceased. The allegation against the petitioner is that the daughter of the informant was married with him about four years back and his behaviour was quite cordial with his daughter. But, after performing second marriage with Nasrun, since last six months, his behaviour was not good. He committed physical and mental torture with her. The informant got information from the petitioner that his daughter is not well. Thereafter, the informant reached the sasural of his daughter and learnt that his daughter has been killed by this petitioner along with his second wife. She was being tortured for last 2-3 days and also assaulted by this

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21688 of 2017 (5) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 petitioner and his second wife.

Case diary has been received.

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that from the post mortem report attached with the case diary, it appears that viscera has been preserved.

In such circumstances, since the daughter of the informant died in suspicious condition in her sasural and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of committing assault along with his second wife, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The petitioner is in custody since 7.11.2016. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and will make efforts to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself in the event the trial is not concluded within nine months and the court below in that case will give reason in the bail order for not concluding the trial within aforesaid period. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T