Tabrej Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47613 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2015 Thana -DARPA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Tabrej Ansari, son of Israil Ansari, resident of village - Pipra, P.S. - Darpa District - East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. R. B.Roy, 'Raman'. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2015 for the offences instituted under Sections 304(B)/34 of the IPC.

The accusation is of killing the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand by the accused persons. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is a case of suicide. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47613 of 2016 (3) dt.25-11-2016 2/2 On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. The onus is on him to explain the cause of death of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2015, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari, District-East Champaran.

Anyhow, the court below is directed to take all necessary steps to expedite the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. The District Magistrate, Motihari and the Superintendent of Police, Motihari, are also directed to ensure that at the time of trial the prosecution witnesses are produced on the date fixed by the court below so that the trial could be concluded within the stipulated period.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Magistrate, Motihari and the Superintendent of Police,Motihari. U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T