IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2684 of 2008 SRIKANT MANDAL @ SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 9.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State. This is an application for bail for offence under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, the wife of the petitioner, was done to death under suspicious circumstances and even her dead body was disposed of without informing her parents. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the deceased had died a natural death and therefore only because such death took place in the house of the petitioner, which was the Sasural of the deceased, would not mean that all the family members including the petitioner (husband) would become ipso-facto accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the deceased, the wife of the petitioner, was done to death under a well hatched conspiracy and in fact when the deceased had died no information was given prior to the disposal of her dead body to any members of the family of the deceased including her parents. He further submits 2 that when the parents and other family members of the deceased had gone to Sasural of deceased Manju Devi to make enquiry about her, the petitioner and his family members had given evasive and conflicting versions by initially taking a plea that she had become traceless or she had gone to Ranchi and also that she was actually burnt and disposed of in the Ganga river after her natural death. This Court is thus not satisfied with the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioner as with regard to the story of natural death of the wife of the petitioner (deceased) and in fact there is nothing in the case diary to substantiate the same. Under such circumstances when the information of the death of the deceased was not given to her parents and other family members, an irresistible conclusion of her being done to death by the petitioner (husband) and his family members cannot be ruled out in the light of the statement of witnesses in the case diary showing their complicity in the occurrence leading to mysterious death of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. In view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2006 and the sessions trial has also commenced, in which according to the counsel for the 3 petitioner, two witnesses have already been examined, this Court would direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of one and half years and in the event, the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will have the liberty to move the Trial Court and the Trial Court will spell out the reasons as to why the trial has not been concluded within the aforementioned period and only thereafter, the petitioner may move this Court for bail. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)