Pintu Verma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55357 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2017 Thana -SURYAGARHA District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================
1. Pintu Verma, Son of Dayanand Verma R/o Village Jakarpura, P.S. Suryagadha, District- Lakhisarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is in custody in connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case No.131 of 2017, a case under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
Petitioner is husband of the victim lady, who died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same against the petitioner also soon before her death. Other witnesses have also supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55357 of 2017 (4) dt.03-01-2018 P2/ petitioner is in custody since 16.06.2017. Other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by different coordinate Benches of this Court. He further submits that the case-diary would reveal that the petitioner was helping in treatment of the deceased as he was present at the time of treatment. Petitioner received the dead body after post mortem examination. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the trial judge itself, who shall pass a reasoned order.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T