Dismissed¶21

Ramesh Chandra Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar @ Jhumi v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Aug 2024CR. MISC./24715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Miscellaneous No.24715 of 2024; order dt. 13-08-2024; Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.; regular bail rejected; Sections 302 and 34 IPC; Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 275 of 2023; Samastipur; dowry demand Rs. 5,00,000/-; death by strangulation; ligature mark in post-mortem; charges framed 27.06.2024; trial to be disposed of within one year; informant represented by Dilip Kumar Roy; APP Jagdhar Prasad; Sr. Advocate Yogesh Chandra Verma for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

None; bail prayer rejected, with an observation that the trial should be disposed of within one year. ¶21

Ramesh Chandra Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar @ Jhumi Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; bail prayer rejected, with an observation that the trial should be disposed of within one year.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the death of his wife (alleged dowry demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and death by strangulation), should be granted regular bail. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Regular bail rejected: considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the enormity of the offence committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The post-mortem report showed a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, showing that her death occurred in circumstances which cannot be said to be natural death.

¶18

Key takeaways

With the rejection of bail, the court observed/directed that the learned court below shall make every endeavour to dispose of the trial within a period of one year.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Patna High Court (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24715 of 2024, oral order dated 13-08-2024: regular bail sought by Ramesh Chandra Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar @ Jhumi, accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 275 of 2023, District Samastipur, arising from the allegation that he and his household tortured his wife (married to him in 2015), demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry from her father, and ultimately strangled her to death. Defence argued it was not a case of dowry death and that the impugned order contained a record error about death occurring within seven years of marriage, and pointed to the petitioner himself informing his father-in-law of the death; the APP and the informant opposed bail. The post-mortem report showed a ligature mark, indicating the death was not natural. Charges were framed on 27.06.2024 and the case was pending evidence, with summons issued to witnesses. Considering the enormity of the offence, the court rejected bail and observed that the court below should make every endeavour to dispose of the trial within one year.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24715 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2023 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

RAMESH CHANDRA MAHTO @ RAMESH KUMAR @ JHUMI SON OF SHIVAJI MAHTO @ SHIVAM MAHTO RESIDENT OF AJNAUL EAST WARD NO.7, P.S. - DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT - SAMASTIPUR

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR ====================	... ... Opposite Party/s ==================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s :	Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Ramjiban Prasad
For the State : For the informant ====================	Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy ==================================
CORAM: HONOURABL PANDEY	E MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

4 13-08-2024

¶10

Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

¶11

and learned APP for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the informant.

¶12

This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Dalsingsarai P..S.Case No.275 of 2023.

¶13

As per allegation, the informant married his daughter to the petitioner in 2015 and the customary gifts and presents were offered to the petitioner at that time. In course of time, the petitioner, along with his other inmates of the house, started abusing and torturing the deceased in various ways,

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24715 of 2024(4) dt.13-08-2024 2/3

¶15

demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father as dowry. In case of non-fulfilment of demand, the petitioner threatened the deceased with dire consequences and ultimately she was done to death by strangulation.

¶16

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not a case of dowry death, as the same has been registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also apparent from case diary, but due to error of record, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage. Further submission is that the FIR itself discloses that it was none else but the petitioner, who himself informed his father-in-law about the death of the deceased, showing his innocence.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned APP as well as the informant opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the allegation of dowry demand is there in the FIR and the deceased died in her matrimonial home by strangulation at the hands of the petitioner and other matrimonial inmates.

¶18

In the post-mortem report, the ligature mark was found around the neck of the deceased which shows that the death of the deceased occurred in the circumstances, which cannot be said to be natural death.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24715 of 2024(4) dt.13-08-2024 3/3

¶20

The report of the stage of the trial, as called for from the court below, shows that the charges have been framed on 27.06.2024 and the case is pending for evidence of the witnesses. Summons have been issued to procure the attendance of the witnesses.

¶21

Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case, as well as enormity of the offence committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected with the observation that the learned court below shall make every endeavour to dispose of the trial within a period of one year.

¶22

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

HR/-

¶24

U T

Ramesh Chandra Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar @ Jhumi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Mahto @ Ramesh Kumar @ Jhumi v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Sharma @ Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Alauddin Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Sujeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Naushad Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Ankaj Das Vs The State of Bihar