Patna High CourtCR. MISC./43410/2017rejected

Pawan Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

2018-02-06Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43410 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -507 Year- 2016 Thana -BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBEGUSARAI ======================================================

1. Pawan Sharma, Son of Late Bhuvneshwar Sharma, Resident of VillageRachiyahi, Kachari Tol, Sharma Tola, P.S.-Muffasil, O.P. Singhaul, District-Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Muffasil (Singhaul) P.S. Case No.507 of 2016, a case under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

Petitioner is husband of Puja Devi, who died in unnatural circumstances within a few years of marriage in her matrimonial house. There is allegation of demand of dowry and torture for the same against the petitioner soon before her death. Other witnesses have also supported the allegation of demand of dowry and torture.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43410 of 2017 (6) dt.06-02-2018 P2/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relatives of the deceased, who are F.I.R. witnesses, had stated before the police that the victim swallowed poison as she was frustrated due to not having any child.

However, no prescription of treatment of the victim has been produced.

Learned counsel for the informed is appearing in this case to oppose the prayer for bail.

Considering the presumption against the petitioner and seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. It has been informed that the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

Let the learned Court-below complete the trial of the case within nine months.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T