Niranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20257 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2022 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== NIRANJAN KUMAR Son of Sanjay Rai Resident of Alampur, P.S.-Phulwari Sharif, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard Mr. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendar Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, representing the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 355 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 lodged on 08.04.2022 by the informant, Ram Naresh Rai.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that his daughter was married with this petitioner in the year 2017 and dowry was given but still the demand was always there for another amount as also a piece of land. She was regularly abused and on the fateful day, she called her elder sister and apprehended that she may be killed. Later, the next day, when the reach the in-laws house, found her death. Accordingly, the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20257 of 2024(3) dt.17-05-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lady was mentally ill, depressed the differences had cropped up between the couple, the relationship was strained and in am anger, she committed suicide.

5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there is nothing on record to show that she was mentally ill and it is an afterthought. Fact remains that the petitioner who is the husband and failed to keep the lady properly. He further submits that trial is on and is at an advance stage.

6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and also the submission put forward by the parties, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail and as such, it is rejected.

7. However, since the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022, the trial Court is directed to speed-up the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from today.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Guddu/- U T