Mantu Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.65676 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2017 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Mantu Rai S/o Jagdish Rai Resident of Village- Hematpur, P.S.- Raghopur, O.P. Rustampur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anirudh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 13-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner who happens to be husband of the daughter of the informant is said to have committed dowry death of his daughter over demand of motorcycle and concealed the dead body in association of other accused persons. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner neither made any dowry demand nor ever subjected the deceased to torture nor committed her murder. As a matter of fact, his wife had suo motu left her house and is traceless. Petitioner has no concern with the aforesaid

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65676 of 2018(4) dt.13-02-2019 2/3 occurrence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite appearance of the accused persons, case has yet not been committed. Petitioner has been languishing in custody since 15.10.2017 with one girl child aged about 11⁄2 years and there is none to look after and take care of her. Per contra, it is submitted by learned APP for the State that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased. Petitioner has been indicted with committing dowry death of the deceased and concealing the dead body in association of his family members. Witnesses in the case diary have also supported the occurrence. Hence he does not deserve bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, learned Trial Court is directed to commit the case of the petitioner as soon as possible in accordance with law and after commitment of the case learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within nine months from the date of commitment and S.P., Vaishali is directed to ensure the production of the witnesses in the case on each and every date fixed without fail. Let a copy of this order be communicated to S.P.,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65676 of 2018(4) dt.13-02-2019 3/3 Vaishali by fax for needful.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) mantreshwar/- U T