IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40280 of 2009 1. MD.RAYEES MIAN S/o Sharif Mian 2. Sharif Mian, S/o Late Thag Mian Both are R/o village Kathiya Mathiya Tola, Parsurampur, P.S. Kangali, District West Champaran .. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……… Opp. Party For the petitioner : Mr.Nadim Seraj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ---- 3 21.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is father-in-law of the deceased who is alleged to have been the victim of “dowry death” of non-fulfillment of dowry demand. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it has come during the course of investigation that they were in the agricultural field at the time of occurrence and they are living separately from the family of the deceased and her husband. The first information report was lodged after 35 hours of delay. It is submitted that informant and his family members have participated in the funeral of the deceased. However, thereafter they proposed marriage of - 2 - second daughter with the informant with the husband of the deceased which was not accepted and thus, the case had been lodged. The petitioners prayer for bail earlier has been rejected vide Annexure 1. It is apparent from the order that case diary had been called for and after perusal of the entire case diary the order has been passed refusing bail to the petitioners. No fresh grounds could be furnished for grant of bail. As a result I am not inclined to grant bail to these petitioners. The prayer for bail is rejected. However, from the perusal of the report of the trial court it appears that charges have been framed on 15.7.2009 and there are 13 witnesses to be examined out of which one witness had been examined and further examination of second witness was due on 9.12.2009 itself. In that view of the matter I direct the trial court to take all effective steps for concluding the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably, within six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within six months the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) - 3 - -----------