Faiyaz Quarashi @ Faiyaz Querashi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38861 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -146 Year- 2014 Thana -BASANTPUR District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Faiyaz Quarashi @ Faiyaz Querashi Son of Late Kutu Quarashi @ Kutu Quarshi @ Mumtaz Quarshi, R/o Village- Sheikhpura, P.S.- Basantpur, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dineshwar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-09-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Bsantpur P.S.Case nO.146 of 2014 , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of dowry death and the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this case as there was love affair between the petitioner and the deceased as such there is no question of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that even allegation was found doubtful by the S.D.P.O. in his supervision

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38861 of 2017 (3) dt.06-09-2017 2/2 and now the petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2017. It has also been submitted that the matter has been settled outside the court. Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail stating that F.S.L. report clearly shows that 'Celphos' was detected in the viscera report and further there is allegation of demand also against the petitioner. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, considering the statement that the parties have settled the dispute outside the court, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T