This court rejected the petitioner's bail plea in a Section 304B/34 IPC dowry death case. Considering the serious allegations and risk of absconding, bail was denied. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Direction to complete trial within six months without adjournments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2126 of 2021
Suresh Lohar @ Suresh Kumar Lohara @ Suresh Kumar Lohar
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Sinha (2), Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated- 03.03.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No.89 of 2020 (G.R. No.557 of 2020) registered under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the dowry death of his wife. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is allegation of demand of dowry also against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the deceased committed suicide as she used to remain tense as the petitioner went outside for earning his livelihood and the whole responsibility came upon her. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that undisputedly, the deceased died within seven years of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of
demand of dowry therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is admissible to bail in a case concerning Section 304B IPC dowry death.
Whether the direction to the trial court for speedy trial is maintainable.
Suresh Lohar
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
