Anil Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47374 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2015 Thana -GANGABRIDGE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================
1. Anil Rai son of Madan Rai resident of Village - Terasia, West of Paya No. 8, P.S. - Ganga Bridge, District - Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajkishore Singh,A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2018 Heard the parties.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S.Case No.83 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, is of killing the daughter of the informant due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and disposed of her dead body. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and no specific allegation has been attributed against the petitioner. It is
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47374 of 2018 (4) dt.26-09-2018 2/2 also submitted that the deceased died due to diarrhea and in this connection, trial is going on and four witnesses have already been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and the petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2017 and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2017, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31424 of 2017.
Heard learned A.P.P., who opposes the prayer for bail. Having considered the entire facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the learned Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to dispose of expeditiously.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T