IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36944 of 2010 SIKANDER THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04/ 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Admittedly, the instant case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of deceased. Initially, the case was instituted under sections 328,307,498A/34 of the IPC but subsequently, after the death section 304B of the IPC was added. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he sprinkled kerosene oil on the person of deceased. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner tries to convince me by referring several paragraphs of the case diary that on the alleged date of the occurrence, the petitioner was not present at his home and the deceased was caught fire accidentally while she was cooking meal but I am not at all convinced with the aforesaid submissions. He also submits that the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the person of the deceased also did not find any smell on the dead body of deceased but in my view, the aforesaid contention would be considered at the time of trial. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case no.49/2010 stands rejected. The learned CJM, Banka shall expedite the process of the commitment of the case of petitioner. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)