Sushil Yadav @ Sushil Kumar Das @ Sushil Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2211 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2017 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sushil Yadav @ Sushil Kumar Das @ Sushil Kumar Ray S/o Radheshyam Yadav, R/o Village- Sabri Bakshijee, P.S.- Jalalpur, Distt.- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. SRI AJIT KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
Petitioner, already in custody, seeks bail in connection with Jalalpur P.S. Case No.104 of 2017, registered under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation in brief is that the informant's daughter was married with the petitioner only in the year 2016 and after the marriage, accused persons were making demand of dowry and she was done to death.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not there, he was working in Surat in a private company and his wife died due to accidental fire. In the FIR it is not mentioned what article was being demanded in dowry.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2211 of 2018(3) dt.17-02-2018 2/2 Learned counsel for the State submits that within 1 year and 3 months, the deceased was done to death by setting fire on her body and there was allegation of making demand of dowry after marriage and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Having considered the said facts and circumstances, prayer of bail of the petitioner is rejected at present in connection with Jalalpur P.S. Case No.104 of 2017, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., 9th, Saran at Chapra.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and preferably conclude the same within two years. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer of bail.
(Arun Kumar, J) S.KUMAR/- U T