Binod Rabidas @ Binod Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41037 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -73 Year- 2012 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ======================================================

1. Binod Rabidas @ Binod Das, Son of Rajendra Rabidas, Resident of Village- Rajoun, P.S. Sono (Charkapathar), District Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.Haque(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 29-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the deceased seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner alongwith his family members are alleged to have killed the only daughter of the informant for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted of behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 10.07.2013. Chargesheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of tempering with the evidence against the petitioner. There is no specific allegation against this petitioner. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Petitioner has falsely

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41037 of 2015 (3) dt.29-10-2015 P2/2 been implicated in the present case for oblique reason. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is specific allegation against him.

A report was called for from the Court below regarding the stage of the case. Six witnesses have already been examined by the Trial Court whereas other four witnesses are yet to be examined including the Doctor and the Investigation Officer. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected.

It is further directed that the trial Court shall take all necessary steps to conclude the trial within a period of six months as only four witnesses are left to be examined. The District Magistrate, Jamui is directed to ensure that all the four witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor are produced before the Trial Court so that the trial could be concluded within a period of six months.

Let a copy of the order be communicated to District Magistrate, Jamui.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Saif/- U T