IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.18259 of 2010
KAMRE ALAM @ ASRAF
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
03. 02.07.2010 Petitioner being the husband is languishing in
jail in a case registered under Section 304B I.P.C. and
Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that when the occurrence took place, the
petitioner was on his job in Mumbai. Moreover the
bona fide of the petitioner’s side is apparent from the
fact that the victim was taken to the hospital and
proper treatment was given but subsequently the victim
succumbed to the injury. It has further been submitted
that the independent witness, at para 5 and 6 of the
case diary have also supported the fact that the family
member of the petitioner took the victim to the hospital.
Learned counsel for the State, however
submits that previously also a case of torture was filed
but the same was subsequently compromised. Though
learned counsel for the State has not controverted the
submission of the petitioner that informant’s side was
informed by the petitioner’s side and after the death of
the victim in the hospital, the present F.I.R. has been
lodged.
2
Considering the aforesaid submissions and
the fact that the petitioner is the husband, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. The
prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, petitioner may renew his prayer for
bail after six months.
Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
