IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.7997 of 2009 SUBHASH SAH, Son of Late Bhagwat Sah, Resident of village- Jamunia, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur. . . . . . Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 09.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the Informant. Petitioner is husband of the deceased and is an accused in a case for the offence under Section 304 B/34 and 201 of the Penal Code. It is submitted on his behalf that appreciating the medical treatment given to the deceased, as is evident from the prescription contained in Annexure-2 series, the mother-in-law of the deceased was allowed regular bail by this court under order no.4 dated 18.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39957 of 2008 and appreciating the said submission and finding recorded in the said order petitioner should also be released on bail. It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2008 that the prescription of Dr. Smt. Kanchan Singh was relied upon to grant bail to the mother-in-law of the deceased. From the case diary, however, it appears that Dr. Smt. Kanchan Singh was never examined by the investigating officer during investigation to support the factum of the treatment of the deceased by Dr. Smt. Kanchan Singh. In view of the fact that Dr. Smt. Kanchan Singh, whose prescription was relied upon while admitting the mother-in-law of the deceased to the privilege of bail by this court, has not been examined by the investigating officer, in support of the factum of treatment which fact this court omitted to notice while passing order - 2 - no.4 dated 18.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39957 of 2008. The same mistake this court is not inclined to repeat again. Learned counsel then submitted that the case is not within the purview of Section 304 B of the Penal Code, as the marriage was solemnized in the year 2001 and the death has taken place in the year 2007 that is beyond seven years. Such submission is being refuted by the counsel for the informant on the basis of the materials on record as according to him the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and not in the year 2001. Such submission should be appreciated in the trial. Accordingly prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Uday/ (V. N. Sinha, J.)