Saryug Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10931 of 2016 (3) dt.27-04-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10931 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2016 Thana -SANDESH District- BHOJPUR ======================================================

1. Saryug Choudhary S/o Late Devlal Choudhary, R/o Village+P.O.+P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur..... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Narayan Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 27-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Sate.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sandesh P.S. Case No. 03 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rita Kumari, the sister of the informant, was married to Laxmi Chaudhary on 03.05.2015, the son of the petitioner, and allegedly, after some days of the marriage Bhaisur Laxman Chaudhary started torturing and assaulting Rita Kumari for dowry, at the time of marriage the petitioner has demanded gold chain of one Bhar but under social pressure the marriage was performed resulting on 02.01.2016 the petitioner and other co-accused killed her and burnt the dead body in Sone river.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is the father-in-law, there is general and omnibus allegation, without

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10931 of 2016 (3) dt.27-04-2016 any legal and tangible material the petitioner is suffering in custody since 04.01.2016 to which learned APP seriously opposes by submitting that the husband is not the accused and specific allegation for demanding dowry is against the petitioner and Bhaisur and further the dead body was also cremated hurriedly. During investigation witnesses have also supported the allegation. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by taking all positive steps, failing which the petitioner, if at no fault, will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T