Dipak Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.77413 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2017 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Dipak Rai S/o Rabindra Rai, R/o Vill.- Shivi Patti, P.S.- Raj Nagar , Distt.- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, being the husband of the daughter of the informant, is languishing in custody since 12.02.2018 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B,201,34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of killing the daughter of the informant Dropadi Devi within two years of marriage for nonfulfillment of further dowry demand and disposing of the dead body of the victim.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77413 of 2018(3) dt.29-01-2019 2/3 that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on the alleged date, rather he was at Delhi since he is employed at Delhi. In fact, the victim was suffering from illness and in course of treatment, she died and the dead body was disposed of after giving information to the informant's side. It is further submitted that the charges have already been framed. A statement has been made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State after going through the case diary submits that the death took place within two years of marriage and there was further dowry demand of a motorcycle, gold and other articles as further dowry. Considering the thrust of accusation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 186 of 2017, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Madhubani is rejected.

It is expected from the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same, preferably within a period of one year. However, if the trial will not be concluded within a period of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.77413 of 2018(3) dt.29-01-2019 3/3 one year without any latches on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T