Vimlesh Kumar Mahto @ Vimlesh Mahto @ Bimlesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2128 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2017 Thana- CHUTIA SAHAYAK District- Rohtas ====================================================== Vimlesh Kumar Mahto @ Vimlesh Mahto @ Bimlesh Mahto S/o Bhola Mahto, R/o Village- Tiuara, P.S.- Chutiya, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SATYADEV PRASAD SINGH YADAV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Chutiya P.S. case No.25 of 2017, G.R. No.555 of 2017, S. Trial No.421 of 2017 registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 201, 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge VIIIth, Rohtas, Sasaram.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner the petitioner committed murder of the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 18.05.2017 and has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2128 of 2018(3) dt.20-02-2018 2/2 implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Some of the witnesses have stated that the deceased had lit the fire and got burnt. At best, it is a case for an offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. There is no demand of dowry. Hence, no offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. is made out. Scuffle took place as the deceased had illicit relation with her Ziza (brother-in-law).

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. Several witnesses have supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. The cause of death of the deceased has not been explained by the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected. The court below is directed to take necessary steps to expedite the trial.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T