Sushil Kunwar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31831 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -409 Year- 2014 Thana -TEGHRA District- BEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Sushil Kunwar Son of Late Jai Nandan Kunwar @ Lukho Kunwar Resident of village - Pidhauli, P.S. Teghra, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 304 (B), 201 and 34 of the I.P.C Allegedly, Komal Kumari, the niece of the informant, was married to Manish Kumar, the son of the petitioner, on 17.04.2014 and thereafter the petitioner started demanding additional dowry by way of Rs. 50,000/- cash and motorcycle and due to non fulfillment the petitioner, his wife and other co-accused in absence of husband of the deceased killed her and cremated the dead body also.

Submission is of false implication and that the husband of the deceased has not been made accused in this case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31831 of 2015 (11) dt.09-02-2016 2/2 nor his statement has been recorded during investigation, against the petitioner there is general and omnibus allegation and he is suffering in custody since 10.04.2015, only the family members of the deceased have supported the prosecution version and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that against the petitioner there is specific allegation of demanding additional dowry and even the witness of the village of petitioner has supported the prosecution version including the family members of the deceased and the petitioner is the main accused. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 409 of 2014 pending in the court of C.J.M. Begusarai.

However, considering detention of the petitioner the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same preferably within nine months failing which the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T