Nandlal Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38642 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -79 Year- 2014 Thana -RAGHUNATHPUR District- SIWAN ====================================================== Nandlal Ram, S/o Dhanesh Ram, resident of Village-Gavirar, P.s Raghunathpur, District Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Gajendra Pd.Yadav(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner is languishing in custody since 27.05.2015 in connection with Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 79 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant's sister was married with Nand Lal Ram, Son of Dhanesh Ram, about five years ago and after marriage, Sasural persons used to demand dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the same, the informant's sister Anju Devi was done to death by burning her by all petitioners- Nand Lal Ram, Dhanesh Ram, Bhim Ram, Wife of Dhanesh Ram, Wife of Bhim Ram. When the informant got information about that, he went there and he could not find the dead body of the deceased and it was disappeared and occurrence took place on 29.05.2014 at 12 P.M. It is further alleged that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38642 of 2015 (3) dt.22-12-2015 2/2 informant and others reached there and they did not find the family members in the house and further said that they have concealed the dead body of the deceased.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2015 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the case. There is no allegation of tampering of the evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to mistake of fact. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is direct allegation of his participation in the alleged occurrence. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 79/2014, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Siwan. Anyhow, the learned Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T