In a bail application, the Patna High Court, noting the petitioner's custody and allegations of suppression of fact, directed the trial court to expedite the trial to conclude it within three months.
Directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within three months; bail prayer to be renewed if not concluded in time.
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.39618 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1918 Year- 2013 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- SAMASTIPUR
====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar, son of Shamnath Singh Kushwaha @ Shyamnath Mahto, of Village Sidhnath Chowk, P.S. Sonpur, District- Saran.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Veena Kumari Jaiswal
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
2 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is an application for bail in connection with Trial No. 1665 of 2017, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1918 of 2013, lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 352, 406, 420, 498A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Allegation against the petitioner is under Section 498A IPC and the petitioner is husband. Further it appears from the impugned order that there is allegation of suppression of fact also against the petitioner as he has been granted earlier provisional bail on the condition that he will bring the complainant
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39618 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017
2/2
back to his house but he has refused to do so and it appears that he has solemnized a second marriage.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
petitioner is in custody for more than two months.
Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant also.
Having heard both sides and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the case is of the year 2013 and complainant has also appeared here, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within three months. If trial is not concluded within the said period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
With the above observation, this application is
disposed of.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail in a case involving Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act where the petitioner is in custody.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to bring the complainant back from her new matrimonial home.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial of the complaints against the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjeet Kumar
The State of Bihar
Renu Kumari
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
