IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35997 of 2009 MD. NAYEEM S/O LATE RAJAULI MIYAN VILL.- KARHU, P.S.- BIHPUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR …. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 09.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, husband, is facing prosecution for offence under Sections 498A, 304B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and his main defence is that the wife, daughter of complainant had died an unnatural death. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has referred to prescription showing the treatment of the deceased, wife of the petitioner as contained in annexure- 2. He also submits that the family members of complainant were given information of such death of complainant’s daughter but they did not turn up and the dead body was buried in presence of the villagers. He therefore would submit that complainant’s daughter had died a natural death and thus belated version after 22 days of the occurrence and that too by way of complaint case would not inspire confidence. The fact that such treatment was made can be 2 made a subject matter of trial. The petitioner is the husband and he has come out with a case that he has informed the family members whereas the complainant not only in the complaint, but also on solemn affirmation has made a categorical statement that no information of such death of his daughter was given by any one. The manner of death of wife of the petitioner as suggested also does not seem to be fully borne out from the corresponding prescription of the Doctor but then this court would not record any finding on that score at this stage. In that view of the matter, the petitioner being the husband who was fully responsible for upkeep and maintenance of his wife the deceased cannot compare must equate his case with other co-accused released on bail. This court therefore is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. As the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2009, this court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and preferably completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production a copy of this order. In the event the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded on account 3 of laches solely attributable to the complainant within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will have a liberty to initially move the trial court for bail and the trial court will be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial. Only thereafter, the petitioner can move before this court for grant of bail in this case. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)