IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16743 of 2009 RAJ DEO SAH, SON OF ANCHIT SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHINTAMANPUR, P.S. PIPRA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 06.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case is under sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The allegation in the first information is of strangulating the lady in the night and of disposing off her dead body by burning her in the morning. Case diary was called for and from the case diary it does not appear that family members of the petitioner tried to inform the parental side of the lady nor they tried to get the post mortem of the deceased conducted before destroying the dead body by cremating her. It is submitted that at one point of time, supervising officer had expressed the opinion that the case was true under Sections 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. However, charge sheet has been submitted under Section 304 B of the I.P.C. There is no circumstance in the case diary indicating any - 2 - bonafide act on the part of the petitioner and other family members. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the presumption arising under Section 304 B of the I.P.C., this Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner on bail. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the trial of the case be expedited. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)