IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1837 of 2008 JAIRAM SAHANI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ******* 4 08.05.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State. The petitioner being the husband is an accused in a case under Sections 304B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, a complaint case was filed with an allegation that on 27th December, 2005, the sister of the complainant was done to death by all the accused persons including the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, points out two circumstances to show that it is a framed case, one namely that even when in paragraph no. 5 of the complaint it has been mentioned that even when they had the knowledge of the occurrence on the day (27.12.2005) inasmuch as they were present at the time of funeral ceremony of the deceased, they did not make any attempt to lodge a case for the next four days and a complaint was filed only on 31.12.2005. He significantly points out that the wife of the petitioner (deceased) was actually suffering from diarrhea which would be apparent from the treatment initially given to her by a doctor at Madhuban and also her 2 being taken for further treatment to S.K. Medical College, after she did not recover till 26.12.2005 at Madhuban, and, therefore, if she died in the way, it can not be said that she had not met her nature death. On the other hand, the A.P.P. has contended that the petitioner is the husband and that there are allegations of torture and physical & mental cruelty. Considering the aforementioned submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this court is of the view that it is true that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased but then he married her after she became widow of his own elder brother which is a strong circumstance by itself to show that the allegation of demand of dowry and causing torture by him is baseless and absurd. It has also come in the case diary that it was the brother of the deceased who had an eye over the property left by the first husband of the deceased. There is also no explanation as to why when there was a clear information of the death of the deceased on 27.12.2005 itself, it took four days to file a criminal case and that too by way of a complaint. There is nothing in the case diary to show that the deceased had not succumbed to the illness and therefore, this Court can not refuse bail to the petitioner only on the ground that he is the husband facing allegation under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 3 Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner Jairam Sahani is directed to be released on bail in Phenhara Police Station Case No. 4 of 2006 (Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2007) on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari with condition that one of the sureties must be any close relative of the petitioner. Anand (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)