Suresh Lohar @ Suresh Kumar Lohara @ Suresh Kumar Lohar vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

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

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bermo P.S. Case No.89 of 2020 (G.R. No.557 of 2020) registered under

sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The 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 further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than

under normal circumstances and there is allegation of demand of dowry also against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the deceased committed

suicide as she used to remain tense as the petitioner went outside for earning his livelihood and the whole responsibility came upon her. It is next

submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that undisputedly, the deceased died within seven years

of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is specific allegation against the petitioner of demand of dowry therefore, there is

every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to 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 above named

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.