Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58544/2017rejected

Ajay Kewat v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-09Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58544 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -119 Year- 2017 Thana -WARSALIGANJ District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Ajay Kewat S/o Late Rudal Kewat @ Rajendra Kewat , R/o VillageBarnama, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Arjun Prasad no. 1- Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar, APP 138 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 704/17/132/17 arising out of Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 119 of 2017 a case under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Nawada.

Petitioner is husband of the victim. There is allegation of commission of dowry death as well as allegation of torture for non-fulfillment of the same. There is no dispute that the victim died un-natural death. The case diary would reveal that the maternal family members of deceased have supported the demand

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58544 of 2017 (3) dt.09-01-2018 2/2 of dowry and torture and some other witnesses have submitted that victim had quarreled with in-laws while working in the field and committed suicide by putting herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil. The petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2017. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail is refused. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the trial judge itself, who shall pass a reasoned order.

(Birendra Kumar, J) sushma/- U