In a bail application under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court of Patna rejected the prayer for bail pending investigation and early stages of trial. It directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28130 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. - 165 Year- 2013 Thana - GOVINDGANJ District- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Abhimanyu Dubey, Son of Sukurt Dubey @ Mankeshwar Dubey, R/o Village - Mananpur, P.S. - Govindganj, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 17-12-2014 Heard both sides.
The petitioner Abhimanyu Dubey seeks bail in Govindganj P.S. Case No. 165 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The informant made allegation that the petitioner being the husband of Sunita was subjecting her to torture on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Her daughter informed the informant on telephone on 23.07.2013 that her husband and others were to burn her and she was immediately thereafter burnt to death.
Mr. Ansul, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that six witnesses have already been examined including the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28130 of 2014 (3) dt.17-12-2014
2/2
informant and the informant has got separated her case during the course of trial.
Be that as it may, the trial has already begun and six witnesses have been examined. I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
The case (S. Tr. No. 979 of 2013) is pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same positively within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through Fax at the cost of the petitioner.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Dilip/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail at the present stage after six witnesses have been examined.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abhimanyu Dubey
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
