Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36956/2016dismissed

Laddu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-26Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36956 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -224 Year- 2014 Thana -MOTIPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Laddu Mahto Son of Mahendra Mahto, resident of Village-Marsandi, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. The Petitioner seeks bail in Motipur P.S. case No.224 of 2014 instituted for the offence under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of S.D.J.M. (West), Muzaffarpur.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner had committed murder of the daughter of the informant, namely, Putul Kumari due to non-fulfilment of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2015 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36956 of 2016 (3) dt.26-10-2016 2/2 been implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence nor there is any substantial evidence to suggest his implication in the present case.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. The onus is upon him to explain the death of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected. The Court below 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 a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T