IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.24084 of 2010 GODIL YADAV, son of Congress Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6/ 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is husband of the deceased Tanika Devi, is an accused in a case under Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code The informant stated in the First Information Report that on receipt of information, he went to his daughter’s Sasural where he found his daughter in an unconscious stage. All of them including the petitioner took the victim to Referal Hospital, Bounsi. The doctor at Bounsi referred the patient (victim) to Bhagalpur, where she died during the course of treatment. The informant learnt that accused persons used to assault her for non- fulfillment of demand of Motorcycle. The informant believes that the accused persons have killed his daughter by administering poison. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the prosecution case that the girl had not earlier complained about either demand of dowry or torture. He further submits that it would appear from the First Information Report that the informant learnt about the alleged torture and demand of dowry after her death. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the Viscera report, as called for by the Court, has been 2 received. The petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2010. Counsel for the State submits that the Viscera report shows the presence of poisonous element in the body of the deceased. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after ten months from today. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)