IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40893 of 2009 MAHESH SHANKAR YADAV SON OF RAM BABU SINGH @ RAM BABU YADAV, R/O VILLAGE GOPAL TOLA, P.S.- KHUSRUPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 18/01/2010 Heard Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The petitioner is an accused of a case registered under Sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code was added. Informant’s daughter Rinku Devi was married three years prior to the occurrence. Allegation is that though sufficient articles by way of dowry were given but she was being constantly tortured by her inlaws in connection with demand of additional dowry. Ultimately, she was killed and her dead body was thrown on a railway track. Submission is that the trial has begun. The brother of the deceased has been examined as a witness. He has not supported the prosecution story. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have also not supported the prosecution case. Post mortem report does not indicate the manner of allegation against the petitioner and others. Report regarding the stage of the case has 2 been received from which it appears that the trial has begun and witnesses are being examined regularly. Out of 17 witnesses 7 have been examined. The trial is progressing well. Petitioner’s case, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, cannot be equated with others when the allegation constitute an offence under section 304 B IPC. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the learned trial court if the informant does not support the prosecution case as made in the FIR. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)