Umesh Prajapati v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52528 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2017 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Umesh Prajapati S/o Nanhak Prajapati @ Nanhaku Prajapati, R/o VillageJakhim, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-06-2019 Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, has been received in sealed cover, opened and after perusal of the report the same is again sealed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Rafiganj P.S. Case No.204 of 2017. Petitioner is husband of the victim of dowry death. Unnatural death of the wife of the petitioner took place in the house of the petitioner within one and half years of marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that allegation is not specific against the petitioner. Other co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52528 of 2018(11) dt.11-06-2019 2/2 have already been allowed bail in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2018. Submission is that the victim died due to fall from a ladder.

No external injury was found by the doctor, who performed post mortem examination, and the viscera report reveals that no poisonous substance was noticed by the FSL. The paternal family members of the deceased supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture.

Considering the presumption of law against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within nine months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the trial judge itself. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T