Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41884/2016rejected

Dharmendra Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2016-12-07Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41884 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -234 Year- 2003 Thana -EKANGARSARAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Dip Narayan Choudhary@Dip Nao Choudhary Resident of Village- Akashpur Police Station- Telahara (Ekangarsarai), District Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nand Kishore Pd, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 31.07.2016 in connection with S.Tr. No. 555 of 2012 arising out of Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No. 234 of 2003 for offence punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased Rinku Devi who died in unnatural circumstances by burn injuries. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same soon before death of Rinku Devi. The death was caused in the matrimonial house within a year of marriage. It has been informed that Sessions Trial No. 555 of 2012 is going and charge has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41884 of 2016 (4) dt.07-12-2016 2/2 already been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 31.07.20016.

The submission of the petitioner is that there is statement of the victim girl recorded before the police where she alleged that she sustained injury while cooking food. Further submission is that father-in-law has already been acquitted as no witnesses has supported the allegation.

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant him bail. However the learned court below is directed to conclude the trial preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period the petitioner may renew his prayer before the Trial Court itself who shall pass a reasoned order. The prayer is rejected.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Prakash/- U T