Roshan Kumar Singh@ Raushan Kumar Singh @ Rawsan Kumar Singh… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

Roshan Kumar Singh@ Raushan Kumar Singh @ Rawsan Kumar Singh… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused; as a consequential direction the trial Court was asked to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 3 months of closure of defence witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, husband of the deceased, in custody since 14.5.2020 in Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020 (ss. 304B/34 IPC and ss. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act), whose earlier bail applications were thrice rejected, should now be enlarged on regular bail in view of alleged contradictions in prosecution depositions and the trial nearing completion.

Court's answer

Taking into account the allegations against the petitioner (husband of the deceased), the cause of death, and the trial having neared conclusion with closure of prosecution evidence, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the petitioner's custody since 14.5.2020, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3 months of closure of the defence witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18698 of 2024 (Patna High Court, Partha Sarthy, J., order dated 10-04-2024): Fourth attempt at regular bail by the petitioner, husband of the deceased, in Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020 registered under sections 304B and 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; three earlier applications stood rejected, the last on 28.6.2023. Counsel urged long custody (since 14.5.2020), non-conclusion of trial, and contradictions in deposition of prosecution witnesses including the doctor. The informant opposed bail, noting death caused by injuries from a hard and blunt object and that the trial was near completion. Per the trial court's report (letter dated 22.3.2024 of ADJ-XII, Gopalganj), prosecution evidence closed on 21.3.2024 with the case fixed for the accused's statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Holding the allegations, the cause of death and the near-conclusion of the trial against enlargement, the Court rejected bail but, considering custody of almost four years, directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 3 months of closure of defence witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18698 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2020 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj

======================================================

Roshan Kumar Singh@ Raushan Kumar Singh @ Rawsan Kumar Singh @ Raushan Singh Son Of Late Paras Singh Resident Of Village- Reotith Garh, Ps- Baikunthpur, Dist- Gopalganj

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avinash Chandra, Advocate Mr. Sarvattam Anand, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP For the Informant : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 10-04-2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case no. 111 of 2020 registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected on three occasions, the last being vide order dated 28.6.2023.

The petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18698 of 2024(3) dt.10-04-2024 2/3

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only on the ground of his being the husband of the deceased. Inspite of him being in custody for almost about four years since 14.5.2020, the trial has still not concluded and there is no chance of the same concluding in the near future. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses to submit that there are vital contradictions in their statement. It is further submitted that taking the contents of the depositions of the witnesses including that of the doctor, there is no chance of the conviction of the petitioner and thus he be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial and to abide by the conditions which may be laid by the Court for his release on bail.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the petitioner is the husband of the deceased but the cause of death is said to be as a result of injuries caused by hard and blunt object. The prosecution evidence has been closed and the trial is near completion.

A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 22.3.2024

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18698 of 2024(3) dt.10-04-2024 3/3

from the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-XII, Civil Court, Gopalganj, the prosecution evidence has been closed on 21.3.2024 and the case is fixed for recording of the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner who happens to be husband of the deceased, the cause of death and the trial having neared conclusion with closure of the prosecution evidence, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

Taking into consideration the petitioner having remained in custody since 14.5.2020, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3 months of closure of the defence witnesses.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Harsh/-