IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32556 of 2009 Saroj Kumar Singh,Son of Sidh Nath Singh, Resident of Village Mashadh, P.S. Udwant Nagar, Distt. Bhojpur, Ara. --------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 5 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, a husband, facing prosecution for an offence under Sections 304(B)/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has his defence that as a matter of fact his wife, the deceased, died a natural death and the informant also ultimately has realized the same while filing an application before the court below after almost three months of lodging of the First Information Report. This Court would find that the First Information Report was lodged on 24.8.2004 and the petitioner has surrendered on 26.6.2009 and the intervening period has been utilized for getting the version as contained in Annexure-2. In any event, such version can only be found to be credible if the same is made in course of trial. Once the credibility of Annexure-2, the alleged application of the informant accepting the death of the deceased 2 by way of natural death, is kept apart, the picture which would emerge is plain and simple. The petitioner, a husband, even if had found that his wife had died out of a natural death, it was his duty to inform the family members of the deceased including the informant for having a look before cremating the deceased. From the First Information Report and the connecting materials in the Case Diary, it is clear that no such information was given and the dead body of the deceased was hurriedly disposed of as a result whereof, there is also charge for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The aforementioned conduct on the part of the petitioner of disposing the dead body without informing the family members of the deceased coupled with the circumstance that the petitioner, husband, will always have to explain of a death taking place within seven years of marriage in case there would be circumstance that it was an unnatural death due to demand of dowry/torture, this Court would find the petitioner not entitled for 3 grant of bail and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Saroj Kumar Singh is hereby rejected. Since the petitioner is in custody for almost four months, his trial if not concluded within a period of one and a half year from today, he would have liberty initially to move the trial court and the trial court would be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period whereafter only, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)