Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14433/2015rejected

Manish Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-03Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14433 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -270 Year- 2014 Thana -NANHPUR District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar Thakur son of Sri Ramashish Thakur resident of village Budnagra, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kr.Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim is languishing in custody since 14.01.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 304B/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No.270 of 2014, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at sitamarhi.

The accusation is of killing the sister of the informant after about two years of marriage for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and disposed of the dead body. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim gave birth to a male child 17 days prior to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14433 of 2015 (3) dt.03-07-2015 2/2 occurrence, hence, there was no occasion for killing the victim. In fact, the victim died due to the post delivery complications and the victim sides were informed after the death and, thereafter, the dead body was disposed of.

Considering the nature of accusation, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. Let the trial be expedited. If the trial will not be concluded within a period of one year, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T