IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38526 of 2008 BALRAM KR.MANDAL @ BALRAM MANDAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.12.2008 Heard Smt. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and is in custody since 16.4.2005. As may appear from the rejection order itself, the charges were framed on 20.5.2006 and by the date on which the rejection order was passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banka, i.e. on 22.7.2008, the learned Judge had not been able in getting a single witness produced before him within a period of more than two years. These are the grounds on which the prayer has been made for the release of the petitioner. Besides, it was contended that the lady was married for five years to the petitioner and after so many years of marriage the allegation comes from the side of the lady of demanding Rs.25,000/- and a TV as also of disliking the lady and, as such, of threatening her to be murdered so as to getting married to another lady. The contention is that all allegations appear absurd and not acceptable on account of the fact that the couple had lived together for several years. Further contention is that the petitioner was found very much present at his house when the informant reached there and the dead body was found lying there. Similar was the situation when police arrived there and that could indicate that the petitioner has no hand in the commission of the offence. - 2 - It was contended so as to explaining the findings of the doctor in the post mortem examination report that if one consumes poison one could have some reflex actions on account of its ill effect and one could be catching hold of his or her neck and, as such, there was no wonder if the doctor found some scratches on the neck. Learned A.P.P. has highlighted the very submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for resisting the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner had developed some disliking for the lady and wanted to get rid of her so as to marrying a girl of his choice. The further contention is that it appears a case of forcibly administering poison to the lady and there was a finding of abrasions 3 or 4 in number on the left neck of the lady. It is contended that the doctor has found the cause of death of the lady as asphyxia due to poisoning. As per the statement of the informant when he reached at the village of the petitioner, the neighbours of the petitioner informed they had heard sounds of Marpit and quarrel coming from the house of the petitioner and that the dead body of the lady was being carried on a thela by the accused persons. As such, circumstances appear supporting the case that it could be a case of administering poison. The petition is dismissed. However, this Court finds that a man could not be confined without trial and that too in such a casual manner. The learned Judge was pointed out throng the argument of the petitioner that - 3 - he is in custody since 16.4.2005 and charges have been framed on 20.5.2006 but no witness had been produced. The learned Judge could not care even to reply the argument. It is directed that the learned Judge has to conclude the trial of the petitioner at any rate and by all means within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order , else, the learned Judge, who is seized with Sessions Case no.1108 of 2005, shall render an explanation to this Court as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against him. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )