IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11457 of 2009 SANTOSH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ----- 3 20.5.2009 The petitioner Santosh Kumar, the husband of deceased, Madhu Devi, is incarcerated in connection with Complaint Case No. 286 of 2004 for offences under sections 304B and 201 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is of his having killed his wife for non fulfillment of dowry demands. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his father Dayanand Prasad and mother Sonama Devi had been enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.9.2008 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 36520 of 2008 and order dated 30.9.2008 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 37262 of 2008. As a matter of fact the mother has been granted anticipatory bail. It will appear from the perusal of the order of Sonama Devi, the mother, that she had been granted bail since the entire allegation is against the husband of the deceased and not the mother-in-law. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Annexure 2 which happens to be a prescription of one Dr. Dhananjay Kumar that Madhu Devi died at 10 P.M. on 19.5.2004 due to cardio-respiratory failure. The said prescription does not indicate whether doctor has a clinic or a nursing home providing facilities for cardiac patients. It also does not indicate whether the said Madhu Devi had been admitted in the clinic or nursing home of the said doctor and was undergoing treatment there. The - 2 - prescription further shows that on 19.5.2004 the deceased had been advised oxygen inhalation , some injection and continuation of rest and suddenly at the end of the prescription there is an entry showing that the patient died at 10 P.M. due to cardio-respiratory failure on 19.5.2004. The whole prescription appears to be suspicious. Be that as it may since this is a complaint case and evidence had been recorded at the inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate after due consideration thereof has found a prima facie case made out against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)