IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24408 of 2008 BABLOO KUMAR YADAV @ BABLOO YADAV S/o Maheshwari Yadav, R/o village Dhamsaini P.S. & Dist. Saharsa. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 01.10.2008 Heard. The F.I.R. was lodged under Section 304(B) IPC against petitioner Bablu Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Yadav, who happens to be the husband of the deceased. The informant, father of the deceased alleged that his daughter telephoned him on 21st March 2008 that some money was required for construction of house whereupon he asked her to begin the work and he will come within 4-5 days after arranging money for it. The informant further alleged that at about 1:30 P.M. the petitioner telephoned him and gave him filthy abuses in that connection and he (petitioner) disconnected the telephone. The informant became disturbed and on 22nd March 2008 he learnt that some untoward incident had taken place at the Sasural of the deceased and on going there he learnt that the petitioner and other in-laws had taken the deceased to the Hospital. The informant went to the Hospital where he found the deceased dead. The informant alleged that due to non- fulfilment of demand of dowry she (deceased) was tortured, harassed and killed. When P.M.Examination on the dead body was conducted any injury was not found and the viscera was preserved and sent for chemical examination. It is also submitted that the petitioner had himself taken the deceased to the Hospital for treatment. Further submission is that the petitioner is in custody since 24th March 2008. 2 Learned counsel also submits that on conclusion of investigation, a case under Section 306 IPC was found and the charge-sheet was submitted under this Section. Mr.S.R.Haque, learned A.P.P. submits that the case diary shows that the charge-sheet u/s 306 IPC had been submitted. He also submits that there is allegation that the petitioner had tortured and harassed the deceased in connection with demand of money. He also submits that the informant has alleged that the petitioner had abused him on telephone. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the present. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, if so advised, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year. Jay/ (C.M. Prasad,J)