In a bail application under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC arising from a dowry death, the Patna High Court rejected the petitioner's plea, interpreted that the onus lies on the husband to explain the death, and directed the lower court to conclude the trial within nine months.
Bail to the petitioner was rejected.
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.13763 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2018 Thana- KHIRI MORE District- Patna
======================================================
ANUJ PRASAD, aged about 27 years (Male), Son of Nageshwar Prasad, Resident of Village - Imamganj, P.S.- Khiri More, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
4 20-06-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is languishing in custody since 01.05.2018 in a case for the offence registered under Sections 304(B)/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 allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13763 of 2019(4) dt.20-06-2019 2/2
There is no substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased.
On behalf of the learned counsel for the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is the husband of the deceased. The onus is on him to explain the 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 Khiri More P.S. Case No. 45 of 2018, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 543 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Danapur, Patna.
The court below is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
U.K./-
(Sudhir Singh, J)
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in a dowry death case.
Whether the petitioner has a prima facie case to justify release on bail.
Anuj Prasad
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
