IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.892 of 2011 PAPPU SINGH @ PAPPU KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 26.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2010 arising out of Tariyani P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 registered under section-304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the petitioner is husband of the deceased. As per prosecution case, the marriage of deceased had taken place with the petitioner in the year, 2004 but submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of petitioner had taken place with deceased on 05.06.2002 which is evident from Annexure-2 to this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Anneure-5 , the certified copy issued by Principal, Madhya Vidyalaya, Aura, Tariyani also corroborates this fact that the marriage of deceased had taken place much prior to the year, 2004 because her elder daughter was born on 22.03.2004. So, in the aforesaid circumstance, the present case does not come under the teeth of section-304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further pointed out by him that the informant was informed by the family members of the petitioner after the alleged occurrence and while deceased was being - 2 - taken, the informant came there and forcibly brought the petitioner as well as his father to the concerned police station where the informant lodged this case out of anger. It is also pointed out by him that the informant intentionally suppressed the date of marriage as well as this fact that after solemnization of the marriage, the deceased had given birth to two children. It would appear from perusal of the FIR itself that the alleged occurrence, took place in the year, 2010 and the F.I.R was lodged on 14.05.2010. It has specifically been mentioned in the written report of the informant that the petitioner as well as other accused started demanding dowry as well as torturing the deceased two years ago from the date of registration of the FIR. So, the aforesaid fact clearly suggests that the deceased led her married life happily and peacefully for more than four or five years in her matrimonial home. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused, namely, Ruma Devi and Dithu Kumar have already been granted privilege of bail by another bench of this court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission of the parties, let the petitioner, namely, Pappu Singh @ Pappu Kumar be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Sessions Trial No. 544 of 2010 arising out of - 3 - Tariyani P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-(F.T.C. No.-II), Sheohar, Sitamarhi. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)