MD. JAMAL SAFI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 304(B)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the informant For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P. : : : 6 26-04-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ORAL ORDER counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 180/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2017 and within three years of the marriage, she has been killed in her matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of the demand of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33576 of 2021(6) dt.26-04-2022 dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. Learned counsel further submits that during course of investigation no evidence has come against the petitioner and only in the supervision note the police has stated that within seven years of marriage the daughter of the informant has died in her matrimonial home. The petitioner is in custody since
7.7.2020 and charge sheet has already been submitted. Regards being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner along with other accused persons tortured the deceased due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the informant’s daughter has died in unnatural condition in the matrimonial home within seven years of the marriage and there is presumption against the petitioner under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33576 of 2021(6) dt.26-04-2022 stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year if the trial does not show any progress. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) S.Ali/- U T
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.