Santosh Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46469 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2016 Thana -RAMGARH District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================

1. Santosh Gupta Son of Premchandra Gupta, resident of Pajrawan, P.S. Nuon, District Kaimur at Bhabhua.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri S.M. Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 08-03-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner being the husband of the deceased who was set at ablaze while in the matrimonial home within one month of her marriage with the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail.

The father lodged the case that within few weeks of the marriage, she was done to death in a mysterious circumstance by setting her ablaze. There was also torture perpetrated on her on previous date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family members have not supported the allegation of demand of dowry. There are materials on record to show that the informant was present in the village and rushed to the 'sasural' and carried

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46469 of 2016 (5) dt.08-03-2017 2/2 the injured (victim) to the hospital when the petitioner also accompanied. He was, however, arrested at the hospital. He is in custody since 16.05.20016. It is also submitted that the mother-inlaw of the victim (mother of the petitioner) has been granted bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the deceased was set at ablaze while she was at her 'Sasural', the doctor found burn injuries on her person. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected.

Let the Trial Court take all endeavour to take up the case and record sufficient progress thereat within 10 months from the date of receipt/communication of the order, failing which the petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail in the Court below itself.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U T