The Patna High Court rejected the bail plea of a petitioner accused in a dowry death case involving Sections 498A, 304B, 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC, directing the lower court to expedite the trial.
Bail application rejected; case remanded for expeditious trial by lower court.
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.13428 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2017 Thana -ALIPUR District- GAYA
====================================================== SHYAM MANOHAR SHARMA @ TUNTUN @ SHYAM MANOHAR, S/o Hari Shankar Sharma, R/o Village- Ur Vishunpur P.S. Alipur in the district of Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. For the Informant : M/S. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner is languishing in custody since 28.08.2017 in a case for the offence registered under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 120(B) and 201/34 of the IPC.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons including the petitioner killed the victim due to nonfulfilment of demand of dowry.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13428 of 2018 (3) dt.10-04-2018
2/2
allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to mistake of fact. There is no eye witness to support the prosecution case. The accusation is that the deceased died due to strangulation but the postmortem report does not support the allegation made in the F.I.R. As per the postmortem report the deceased is said to have died due to head injury.
On behalf of the learned counsels for the State and the informant, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and onus is upon him to explain cause of death of the deceased.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2017/49 of 2017, in Alipur P.S. Case No. 47 of 2017, pending in the court of learned A.D.J.-IV, Gaya.
Anyhow, learned court below is directed to expedite
the case.
U.K./U T
(Sudhir Singh, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a dowry death case involving serious non-bailable offences.
Whether the discrepancies between the FIR, postmortem report, and prosecution evidence warrant bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Manohar Sharma @ Tuntun @ Shyam Manohar
The State of Bihar
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
