Sikandra Kumar Mahto vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the

present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No.44 of 2019 (S.T. No.215 of 2020) registered under Sections 304B/201

of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the dowry death of his wife. It

is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the death of the deceased took place within seven years of her

marriage with the petitioner otherwise than under natural circumstances. It is next submitted that after fulfilling the demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-,

still the petitioner was demanding Bed (deewan) as additional dowry. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable

period of time. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

Learned P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that undisputedly the deceased died within seven years of

her marriage with the petitioner otherwise than natural circumstances and there is further allegation of demand of Rs.2,00,000/, Bed (Deewan) and

later on Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. Hence, in view of serious nature of allegation

against the petitioner, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be

admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months

from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID- 19 pandemic.