IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39576 of 2011 Md. Kayam Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3 21-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and admittedly, the marriage of the deceased had taken place eight months ago. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case does not come under the ambit of Section-304B of the Indian Penal Code because there is no allegation of demand of dowry. It is, further, contended by learned counsel for petitioner that as a matter of fact, the deceased died of her ailment but later on, the informant has alleged this case on mere suspicion. Paragraph-31 of the case diary reveals that the doctor has found that it is a case of poisoning and moreover, some injuries were also found on the person of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 2 Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Amdabad P.S. Case No. 41 of 2010 pending in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Katihar is, hereby, rejected, at least, at this stage. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar is directed to commit the case of the petitioner to the court of session as early as possible, if the same has not been committed to the court of session as yet and after commitment, the learned trial court shall expedite the trial of the petitioner and try to conclude the same as early as possible. AKVishwakarma ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)