Vikram Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54860 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -80 Year- 2016 Thana -RUNISAIDPUR District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Vikram Sahni, son of Dilip Sahni, Resident of Village- Gorigama, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Divya Bharti, Adv. Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 80/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The mother of the deceased alleged that her daughter was married to the petitioner two years ago. The petitioner and others were torturing her daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. On 03.03.2016 the informant got information that the petitioner and others strangulated her daughter to death.

Mr. Vikramdeo Singh learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is of course, the husband of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54860 of 2016 (3) dt.27-02-2017 2/3 deceased, but no specific allegation of demand of dowry and torture is made against the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner herself committed suicide. The doctor found one ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The cause of death is hanging by rope like substance. It is further submitted that the informant and others later on, stated that they lodged the case on wrong information.

It appears that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and his wife within two years of her marriage died in the house of the petitioner on account of non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day-to-day basis and conclude the same within nine months from the date of receipt of this order. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi is directed to ensure the attendance of all the non-examined prosecution witnesses of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 80/2016 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, so that the trial must be concluded within nine months. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54860 of 2016 (3) dt.27-02-2017 3/3 Police, Sitamarhi and learned trial court for information and needful.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T