Santosh Poddar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38947 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2015 Thana -AMARPUR District- BANKA ======================================================
1. Santosh Poddar S/o Late Ashok Poddar Resident of Village Amarpur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh 1 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant has alleged that his sister was married with the petitioner in the year 2011 and on 8.4.2015 he got an information that his sister has been killed by the petitioner and her in-laws for non fulfillment of dowry demand. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He is in custody since 10.04.2015. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the evidence against the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38947 of 2015 (3) dt.09-10-2015 On the alleged date of occurrence petitioner had gone to market and in his absence accidental fire is said to have taken place in which the deceased has sustained burn injuries. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is husband of the deceased. The alibi taken by the petitioner has not been accepted by the I.O.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case no. 101 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka. This application for bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to take necessary steps to expedite trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Amin/- U