Jitendra Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25310 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -87 Year- 2013 Thana -LALGANJ District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Jitendra Tiwary son of Late Chhote Lal Tiwary, resident of villageKharauna, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bela Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary-I(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in a case registered under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant has filed a written report before the S.H.O., Lalganj on 01.06.2013 at 10.45 A.M. alleging therein that after marriage the husband and in-laws of his daughter have started demanding a gold chain and colour T.V. and she was subjected to torture for non-fulfillment thereof.

On 01.06.2013 the informant has got information that his daughter has been killed by her husband and in-laws. On reaching at the matrimonial house of his daughter he found that the body of his daughter was kept in a plastic bag at a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25310 of 2015 (2) dt.21-07-2015 lonely place under a shrub and the dead body bears a black scar mark around the neck. He thereafter went to the Lalganj P.S. and on the strength of information furnished by him, the police has instituted Lalganj P.S. Case No. 87 of 2013 against the accused persons.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2013. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he is the husband of the deceased.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner and the prayer for bail is rejected. The learned trial Court is directed to frame charges in the present case at the earliest and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Chandran U T