Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39618/2017dismissed

Sanjeet Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-19Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39618 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1918 Year- 2013 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar, son of Shamnath Singh Kushwaha @ Shyamnath Mahto, of Village Sidhnath Chowk, P.S. Sonpur, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Renu Kumari, wife of Sanjeet Kumar of Village Sidhnath Chowk, P.S. Sonpur, District Saran at present Daughter of Late Sukhadeo Mahto @ Sukhodeo Sarwagya of Village Siwana, P.S. Mohiuddin Nagar, DistrictSamastipur. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Trial No. 1665 of 2017, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1918 of 2013, lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 352, 406, 420, 498A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is under Section 498A IPC and the petitioner is husband. Further it appears from the impugned order that there is allegation of suppression of fact also against the petitioner as he has been granted earlier provisional bail on the condition that he will bring the complainant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39618 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 back to his house but he has refused to do so and it appears that he has solemnized a second marriage.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is in custody for more than two months. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant also.

Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the case is of the year 2013 and complainant has also appeared here, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within three months. If trial is not concluded within the said period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. With the above observation, this application is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U