IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36528 of 2009 Anand Kumar Pandey S/o Ram Naresh Pandey, Resident of Moh- Damuchak, P.S. Kajimohamadpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur. -------- Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, a husband, faces prosecution for an offence under Section 498(A) & 306 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to an allegation of being a party in killing of his own wife. Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that it is an open and shut case of suicide, a fact which stands substantiated from the statement of the victim girl recorded by the police during course of her treatment wherein she had admitted herself to have put on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil. He would further submit that the said statement of the victim girl in fact stands corroborated from the statement of the witnesses who had seen the victim girl locked herself inside the room and thereafter putting herself on fire. He had 2 also referred to an objective finding of the Investigating Officer noticing the breaking of the door closure which in his opinion is confirming the version of the other witnesses that it was the petitioner who on realizing that his wife had put herself on fire had tried to force open the door and injuries by fire on both the hands of the petitioner as also on his person has been found by the Investigating Officer immediately on arrest of the petitioner, would itself go to show that the petitioner had made desperate attempt to save the life of his burning wife. This Court would find that all the materials are pointing towards the wife of the petitioner committing suicide. While it is true that either she herself or the other witnesses including the informant had alleged mental torture caused to her by the petitioner being the reason of suicide but then it cannot be said that the occurrence in question leading to either outbreak of fire or the sustaining of injuries by the deceased was on account of the petitioner’s direct involvement therein. The petitioner, therefore, in the 3 opinion of this Court would be entitled for grant of bail. It appears that the charges in this case have already been framed on 15.4.2009 but even thereafter in the next five months, not a single witness has been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2008 and therefore, if the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, this Court would direct the petitioner, namely, Anand Kumar Pandey to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Sessions Trial No.161 of 2009 (State V/s Anand Kr. Pandey) arising out of Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 329 of 2008, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be either of the parents of the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner must remain present on each and every date in course of trial and his absence even for a single day without there being a reasonable cause would make him liable for 4 cancellation of his present bail. The trial court is also directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is not unnecessarily lingered and in fact gets concluded within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)