IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7758 of 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR MADESHIA, son of late Harilal Sah, resident of village Sohanpur Bazar, P.S. Banakata, District Deoria (U.P.) ….. Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…. Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr.Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No. 5, A.P.P. ------ 3 28.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, that from the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased itself, it is manifest that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the same as the occurrence according to the complainant is of about 18.4.2008, whereas the complaint was filed after much delay on 2.5.2008. It is submitted that at least on 29.4.2008 the factum of alleged occurrence was known to the husband of the informant even if the allegation is considered to be - 2 - true. It is next submitted that in fact the deceased met with accident and her dying declaration has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate concerned in the Sadar Hospital, Deoria and the doctor has also endorsed the dying declaration stating therein that the same has been taken when the victim was mentally fit. It is submitted that in fact the accident took place on 18.4.2008 and the victim was all along treated for burn injury in hospital at Deoria and then she was referred to Gorakhpur also. However, she died on 3rd April 2008 due to the burn injury. Learned counsel submits that from the dying declaration which has been appended as Annexure 2, it would be manifest from that the victim girl herself stated that she is having three children from the wedlock and there was no quarrel and dispute with any body in the family and the occurrence was an accident. It is also submitted that after the death “Panchnama” was prepared in the presence of the family members of both sides including the husband of the informant, i.e., the father of the deceased. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the paragraph 54 of the case diary wherein it is recorded - 3 - that “Panchnama” was prepared in presence of the father of the victim. Learned counsel further contends that there is no allegation of any torture upon the victim. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 10.8.2009. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is allegation of demand of one lac as a dowry in the complaint and petitioner is the husband of the deceased. However, he accepts that dying declaration is on record and from paragraph no. 54 of the case diary it appears that father of the victim lady was present at the time of preparation of “Panchnama”. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, SANTOSH KUMAR MADESHIA, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 71 of 2008. Further, the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of trial. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive - 4 - dates without any reasonable explanation then the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioner. It is made clear that the concerned court will proceed with the trial in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observation or finding recorded by this Court in this order. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)