IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23346 of 2008 SITAR LAL @ SHITAR LAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 07- 25.8.2008 Heard Mr. K N Diwakar for the petitioner, and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP. The petitioner seeks bail in Muzaffarpur Town PS Case No. 280/2007 under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the fardbeyan lodged by one Dukhi Shah, his daughter (Kiran Kumari) was married to the present petitioner about 18 months ago whereafter she was living with her husband and the in-laws in her matrimonial home. She had been complaining to her Naihar people over telephone of ill- treatment at the hands of the present petitioner and his parents relating to demands of dowry, and she used to be beaten and threatened of death. On 15.7.2007, he had gone over to his daughter’s sasural and was informed by the inmates there that she was undergoing treatment for burn injuries in the hospital. He then went over to the SKMC Hospital and met her daughter who was undergoing treatment for burn injuries. She ultimately died on 15.7.2007 at 12 noon. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 15.7.2007, whereas the fardbeyan was lodged on 20.7.2007. He next submits that the father of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 24.1.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No.49796 of 2007 (Shambhu Sah vs. State of Bihar). He further submits that his mother has also been - 2 - granted bail by this Court by order dated 14.3.2008, passed in Cr. Misc. No.49572 of 2007 (Mahajanee Devi Vs. State of Bihar). He also submits that he had surrendered on 31.7.2007 and, according to the case diary, is in custody since 4.8.2007. He, therefore, prays for bail. 2. Learned APP has opposed this application and submits that the following allegations have been made in the fardbeyan :- bl ij eSa viuh iRuh ds lkFk ,l0 ds0 ,e0 lh0 ,p0 oxZ okMZ esa vk;k rks ns[kk fd gekjh yM+dh fdj.k nsoh xnZu ls uhps iwjk tyh gqbZ gS A gesa rFkk viuh ekW dks ns[kdj jksus yxh rFkk cksyh fd firkth gesa ifr]lkl]”olqj feydj fdjklu rsy fNM+ddj tyk fn;k gS A eSa ugha cpWwaxh A vkt fnukad 15@7@07 dks le; 12 cts fnu esa mldh e`R;q esfMdy dkWyst] eqtiQjiqj esa gks x;h gS A He also submits that the petitioner is the husband and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl.