The High Court refused bail to the husband of a deceased woman accused of dowry death, noting the trial was incomplete. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months and ensured witness attendance.
Bail refused; trial court directed to conclude trial within six months; DSP directed to ensure witness attendance.
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.25599 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -94 Year- 2010 Thana -DULHIN BAZAR District- PATNA
====================================================== Vakil Yadav, Son of : Tekka Yadav, Resident of Village: Jawarpur Koiriya, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, District: Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Priyedarshi, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 23-11-2016 Heard both sides
The petitioner seeks bail in Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2010 registered under Section 304B and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Act.
The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation that the petitioner and his family members killed Babita Kumari, the daughter of the informant and disposed of her dead body due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 01.07.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8429/2015 with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months and if the trial is not concluded within the prescribed time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. It
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25599 of 2016 (2) dt.23-11-2016
2/2
is submitted that the trial has not yet been concluded and no prosecution witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that charges have already been framed.
Considering the nature of allegation made against the petiitoner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2010. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial holding the same on day-to-day basis and conclude the same positively within six months from the date of receipt / production of this order.
The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Danapur, Patna is directed to ensure attendance of the prosecution witnesses in Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2010 in the court of the learned A.D.J. VI, Danapur vide S. Tr. No. No. 872/2015.
If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Dilip/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving dowry death where the trial is not yet concluded.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the proceedings to ensure timely conclusion of the trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vakil Yadav
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
