IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33147 of 2011 Ranjay Bishwakarma Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 14.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner renews his prayer for bail on the third occasion. The deceased is stated to have died in approximately one year of the marriage in the background for demands of dowry. The police case was registered under Section 304 B but the chargesheet was submitted under Section 306 IPC. The order of the lst Additional Sessions Judger adequately notices materials from the Inquest Report of a ligature mark around the neck. The right side eye was pressed into eye ball, apart from Larynx trachea, liver spleen, both kidney were found congested. The cause of death was opined as hanging. The order of the lst rejection dated 18.5.2010 makes it apparent that the defence of suicidal death was adequately considered and rejected. This was reiterated in the second prayer for bail likewise rejected on 9.3.2011 observing that whether it was 306 IPC or 304 B IPC is hardly relevant. The report called for from the trial court reveals that earlier charge was framed under Section 306 IPC on 1.9.2010. Four prosecution witnesses were examined including the informant. The charge was then amended on 6.9.2011 to one under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner did not oppose the same and claimed to be tried. Learned Counsel for the petitioner renewing the prayer for bail submits that after alteration of the charge no fresh witness has been examined. The earlier argument that it was at best a case of suicide is 2 reiterated urging that even a case of abetment of suicide is not made out. The allegations are serious. The presumption in law is against innocence of the accused. The prosecution witnesses were forthcoming before alteration of the charge when it was less grave. The Court finds it difficult to simply accept the submission that the same prosecution witnesses were not forthcoming when the charges had been made more grave at their instance. The charge has been amended unopposed as recently as 6.9.2011. There are stated to be a total of eight witnesses. The trial court has opined that if the prosecution witnesses are forthcoming the trial can easily be concluded early. There is no occasion to reconsider the prayer for bail. Summons have been issued to witnesses after alteration of the charge as recently as 13.9.2011.The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad is directed to ensure proper service of summons so that the same witnesses who fully cooperated when the charges were less grave are provided adequate opportunity to contest when the charge has been made more grave. The trial court shall take all necessary steps under Section 350 Cr.P.C. against the concerned if the report of the summon is not submitted to it to facilitate an early conclusion of the trial. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)