Dipak Kumar Keshri @ Dipak Keshri @ Dipak Kesri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7488 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -357 Year- 2016 Thana -KHAZANIHAT District- PURNIA ======================================================

1. Dipak Kumar Keshri @ Dipak Keshri @ Dipak Kesri, Son of Sri Jag Narayan Keshri, Resident of Mohalla- Churipatti Madhubani, P.S. K. Hat, (Madhubani), District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 15-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K. Hat (Madhubani) P.S. Case No. 357 of 2016 (G.R. No. 2596 of 2016) registered under Sections 304(B), 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased who is said to have committed dowry death of the daughter of the informant by pressing her neck.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Postmortem report also does not corroborate the prosecution case. Petitioner is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7488 of 2018 (4) dt.15-03-2018 2/2 languishing in custody since 13.08.2016.

Learned APP has submitted that in inquest report injury mark is found on the neck of the deceased and doctor has also opined the cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected in connection K. Hat (Madhubani) P.S. Case No. 357 of 2016 (G.R. No. 2596 of 2016) pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within nine months from the date of commitment of the case. (Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) sushma/- U