IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21004 of 2010 PARASHURAM SAHNI S/O SRI JIYALAL SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAJWARA, P.S. MUSHAHARI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- /5/ 02.12.2010 Heard Sri Bindh Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel for the sole petitioner and Sri Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the father of the victim girl. The petitioner who is in custody in connection with Muzaffarpur Sessions Trial No. 876/2009 (arising out of Mushahari P.S. Case No. 44/2009), for the offence under Sections 498A and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subsequently, Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was added, has prayed for grant of bail. Sri Bindh Keshri Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present bail petition, submits that petitioner is the elder brother of the husband of the deceased and he was residing at different place and has got no connection with the present case. It has further been submitted that in this case, despite the fact that occurrence had taken place on 14.06.2009, First Information Report was lodged i.e. on 19.06.2009. It was further submitted that the husband of the deceased is already in jail and the petitioner is languishing in jail since 03.04.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition to show that the petitioner was not living with the husband of the deceased. On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well learned counsel for father of the victim girl, have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that First Information Report was lodged on declaration of the deceased. At the time of recording fardbayan, which was recorded on 16.06.2009, the victim was admitted in hospital. She has categorically stated that this petitioner, husband of the deceased and father-in-law and mother-in-law had sprinkled kerosene oil while, the victim was sleeping. Subsequently due to injury she succumbed and as such the fardbayan of the deceased can be termed as dying declaration. It has further been submitted during investigation, it was detected by the Superintendent of Police that the investigating Officer was not conducting investigation in its right perspective, due to that reason the investigating officer had not even recorded reinstatement of the informant/victim lady. It has further been submitted that in this case after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case is fixed for evidence. Be that as it may, in view of the allegation made in the First Information Report, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. However since the petitioner is in jail and case is at the stage of trial it is desirable to direct the Court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. With above direction, the bail petition stands rejected. Safik ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)