Raudi Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3560 of 2017 Arising out of P.S. Case No. - 171 Year - 2016 Thana - SIDHWARA District - DARBHANGA ====================================================== Raudi Mahto, Son of Late Sri Mahto, Resident of Village - Bharwara, P.S. Singhwara, Distt. - Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased Anjan Devi who was married with Sushil Mahto. Sushil Mahto is not an accused which would be evident from the FIR because he was doing business in Goa. Allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same within one and half year of marriage is against the petitioner and his wife.

Submission of the petitioner is that the husband is not an accused. Allegation is not specific and the petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2016.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3560 of 2017 (3) dt.15-03-2017 2/2 For a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that husband should be accused, especially, when there is explanation in the FIR as to why the husband is not an accused in this case.

Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail for the present in connection with Singhwara Police Station Case No. 171 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga/successor court.

Hence, prayer for bail is refused.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court itself.

Kundan (Birendra Kumar, J) U T