IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28436 of 2009 Md. Ajmat @ Kalim, Son of Md. Shamsuddin, Resident of Village Piru Bigha, P.S. Chandauti, District Gaya. --------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioner, husband, facing prosecution for an offence under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, seeks his bail on the ground that it would be unbelievable that in a muslim family, a demand of dowry would be made. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the whole story has been framed with a view to implicate the petitioner but there is nothing on record which can lead to either substantiation of the first part of the allegation of demand of dowry or the deceased being coerced to death on account of such mental/physical cruelty. Learned counsel for the informant pointing towards paragraph no.39 of the case diary would submit that from the postmortem 2 report, it would be clear that the deceased had died on account of burn injury by use of kerosene oil sprinkled all over her body. In the opinion of this Court, not only the fact that the petitioner is the husband who does not have any explanation for the death of his wife, he would also become liable for the offence in view of the fact there are number of witnesses who have supported the allegation of demand of dowry and the resultant oriental/physical torture against the petitioner. The police officer has also closely inspected the place of occurrence, which also does not disclose anything to show that it was a case of natural death. That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Md. Ajmat @ Kalim is hereby rejected. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)