The High Court rejected a renewed bail application in a Dowry Death case involving burns and strangulation. The court directed expeditious examination of remaining witnesses, noting no grounds for a different view from the earlier order.
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.8377 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2019 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anwarul Haque, Son of Soyeb @ Ganaur @ Soyeb Alam @ Shoaib Alam, Resident of Village-Sorpaniya, P.S.-Dhaka (Pachpakadi), District-East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
3 13-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Case No.207 of 2021 arising out of Dhaka (Pachpakadi) P.S. Case No.186 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of learned 21st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari.
Prayer for bail was earlier rejected on 21.06.2021 in Cr.Misc. No.857 of 2021. The prayer has been renewed.
As per the report dated 03.03.2022 received from the trial court, two prosecution witnesses have been examined. The rest prosecution witnesses, including informant, Doctor and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8377 of 2022(3) dt.13-04-2022 2/3
Investigating Officer, remain to be examined.
The prosecution case is that the informant’s daughter was being tortured for dowry by her in-laws. She has been strangulated and set ablaze by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now remained in custody since 10.06.2019. He refers to depositions of two witnesses, copies of which have been placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit.
The learned APP has reiterated the submissions advanced while the petitioner’s prayer for bail was being considered on 21.06.2021 to the extent that unnatural death has occurred within seven years of marriage. The First Information Report alleges demand of dowry. Death has been found to be caused due to haemorrhage on account of burn injuries. The petitioner is the husband.
Considering the entirety of the circumstances arising from the aforesaid submissions, this Court would observe that the three remaining witnesses be examined by the court expeditiously without undue adjournments or unnecessary delay. No case is made out for taking a different view than what has been taken by this Court in the order dated 21.06.2021 passed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8377 of 2022(3) dt.13-04-2022 3/3
Cr.Misc. No.857 of 2021.
The application stands rejected.
This Court would expect that the petitioner’s counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
PNM
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving dowry death.
Whether the examination of remaining prosecution witnesses warrants release on bail.
Anwarul Haque
The State of Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
