Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46868/2017dismissed

Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-11Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46868 of 2017 (3) dt.11-10-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46868 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -611 Year- 2016 Thana -PHULWARI District- PATNA ======================================================

1. Ranjit Kumar, S/o Bishnu Dayal Rai, Resident of Fuliatola, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Chandrasen Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-10-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 611 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 304B of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and allegation against the petitioner is of committing dowry death of the deceased.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment when the petitioner saw a boy coming out of his house and an altercation took place between the petitioner and deceased and there was no intention of the petitioner to kill the deceased. It has further been submitted that there is no demand of dowry and, therefore, there is no application of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46868 of 2017 (3) dt.11-10-2017 has been in judicial custody since 20.10.2016 and now charge has also been framed.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and serious nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, as the petitioner is in custody for about one year and charge has been framed, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it as soon as possible preferably, within a period of nine months.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T