IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18259 of 2010 KAMRE ALAM @ ASRAF Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 02.07.2010 Petitioner being the husband is languishing in jail in a case registered under Section 304B I.P.C. and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the occurrence took place, the petitioner was on his job in Mumbai. Moreover the bona fide of the petitioner’s side is apparent from the fact that the victim was taken to the hospital and proper treatment was given but subsequently the victim succumbed to the injury. It has further been submitted that the independent witness, at para 5 and 6 of the case diary have also supported the fact that the family member of the petitioner took the victim to the hospital. Learned counsel for the State, however submits that previously also a case of torture was filed but the same was subsequently compromised. Though learned counsel for the State has not controverted the submission of the petitioner that informant’s side was informed by the petitioner’s side and after the death of the victim in the hospital, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. 2 Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner is the husband, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)