IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44252 of 2008 HARKHIT LAL DEO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 06/ 25.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The allegation against the petitioner is that he killed his wife for not getting the desired dowry articles either in cash or in kind. It is contended that the basic allegation is that the lady was strangulated to death but the FIR itself indicates that the informant was told by the neighbours of the petitioner about the mode of lady being killed. But the viscera report received from the F.S.L. which appears at Flag ‘P’ indicates that Endosulfan, which is a Chloro- organic pesticide was found in it. The contention is that the mode of killing as alleged does not get support from the F.S.L. report. The learned counsel for the State controverts the contention by submitting that inquest report indicates some dark marks around the throat and further that it is generally a guess work even of the neighbours in such situations and one could not be exact in such matters which generally - 2 - happened within the four walls and privacy of house lady. Regard being had to the allegations and the contentions and considering that the petitioner is the husband I refuse the prayer for bail of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. The charges have been framed. If the trial is not concluded within a further period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, the court below shall itself release the petitioner on bail on execution of a bond to its own satisfaction. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)