IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10140 of 2008 AJAY MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 20.5.2008 Petitioner, Ajay Mahto, is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned Advocate of the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is allegation that due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the petitioner and his family members killed the deceased by administering poison. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that no direct evidence is available in the case diary that the deceased was killed by poisoning. The learned Advocate further submitted that he has annexed the prescription of the doctor which will show that the deceased was suffering from heart and other diseases for which she was treated and during treatment, she died. From perusal of Annexure-2 series, it appears that deceased Lalita Devi was treated by Dr. R.N. Choudhary for some ailments but there is nothing to show that her ailment was so much serious that she could have died at the young age. It further transpires that there is nothing in the entire case diary to establish that just after death of the deceased, her parents were informed and at the time of cremation of the dead body, her parents were present. In absence of this evidence, I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate of the petitioner for enlarging the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected for the present. BT (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J)