Amar Kamat @ Amar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56744 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2022 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== Amar Kamat @ Amar Kumar Son of Rajendra Kamat, Resident of villageDharamdiha, P.S- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-12-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 146 of 2022 (corresponding to G.R. No. 506 of 2022), lodged under Section 304(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code but charge sheet has been filed under Section 306 of I.P.C.

As per prosecution case, the informant has disclosed that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the petitioner according to Hindu custom. The demand of Rs.5 lacs as dowry was there and due to non-fulfillment of said demand the petitioner alongwith others killed the daughter of informant on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56744 of 2022(2) dt.24-12-2022 2/2 26.03.2022 by hanging her and tried to dispose of her body. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence, he is in custody since 01.04.2022. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed in this case under Section 306 of I.P.C. but Trial Court has taken cognizance under Section 304(B) of I.P.C. He also submits that upon reading of F.I.R. it is very much clear that marriage was solemnized prior to 7 years, as such Section 304(B) of I.P.C. is not attracted in this case. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 304(B) of I.P.C. and Court has also taken cognizance under Section 304(B) of I.P.C.

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, his bail application is hereby rejected. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial withing a year.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ritik/- U