IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8900 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR GHOSHAL @ DR.RAJ KUMAR BHUSHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 16.6.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased Bandhwi @ Bani, is an accused in a case under section 304B/34 of the Penal Code. Subsequently charge sheet was submitted under sections 302, 201, 120B and 498A of the Penal Code as well as section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that the marriage of the deceased took place on 3.2.2007 and she died in the night of 14/15.5.2007. The petitioner submits that it would appear from the prosecution case itself that the prosecution as well as the Police was soon informed of the death of the victim girl and pursuant to the aforesaid information the police had also arrived at the house of the accused persons. It is also not in dispute that the dead body was not disposed of and it was prerserved till the time the informant and others came to the Sasural of the victim. The post mortem of the body was also conducted. Both the inquest report and the post mortem report would show that the victim committed suicide by hanging. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim 2 had left a suicide note, not making any allegation against any of the family members. On the other hand, at the time of committing suicide she had put on the best of her apparels. The suicide note was duly compared in police laboratory and the hand writing was found to be of the same person namely the victim girl. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time rather he was away at Bangalore pursuing his medical course in M.S. Ramaiah Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore and from 10.5.2007 to 16.5.2007 he conducted free dental check-up of the employee of Bharat Electronics Limited, Banaglore along with five Doctors. In support of his contention, he has annexed requisite certificate contained in Annexure-2. Learned counsel further submits that mother-in-law of the deceased was granted bail by a bench of this court by order dated 17.1.2008 passed in Cr.Misc.No.385 of 2008 and father-in-law of the deceased was also granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner has surrendered on his own on 16.5.2008 Learned counsel for the informant and the State opposes the prayer for bail. They submit that the police after investigation submitted charge sheet under section 302 of the Penal Code and both inquest report as well as post mortem report show cut injuries on both the forearms of the deceased. They further submit that the deceased was strangulated to death. In support of their contention, they referred to a chart showing several phone calls and SMS made 3 KHAN between the petitioner and his parents in the relevant night. It is submitted that the victim girl was killed within three months from the date of her marriage. It appears from the case diary that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The suicidal note was compared and was found to be of the same person. Even assuming that the victim committed suicide, the petitioner, being the husband, at this stage cannot stand fully absolved of his responsibility. Having considered the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months. (S.P.Singh,J)