Jalil Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27811 of 2017 (5) dt.01-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27811 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -228 Year- 2016 Thana -BARHARIA District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Jalil Ahmad, son of Ali Raja Ahmad, Resident of Village- Pranpur, Police Station- Barharia, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2017 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barharia P.S. Case No. 228 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 498(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is husband and allegation against him is of causing dowry death of the deceased.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case and no specific allegation has been made and he was not present in the village at the time of alleged occurrence and when he heard that his wife has caught fire, he came there and took her to Gorakhpur for her treatment and during the course of her treatment, she died. Further petitioner has been in judicial custody since 10.01.2017.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27811 of 2017 (5) dt.01-08-2017 Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that materials collected during the course of investigation clearly shows that it is the informant, who took her to hospital for treatment and not the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused person is that they set on fire the deceased.

Having heard both sides, considering the fact and circumstances of the case and serious nature of allegation, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, his application for regular bail is, accordingly, rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of nine months. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T