Akmal Sk vs Unknown on 3 July, 2017

1

03.07.2017
(16)

(p.j.)

CRM No. 6097 of 2017

In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 29.06.2017 in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No.
186 of 2017 dated 03.03.17 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 891 of 2017 under
Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And

In the matter of:- Akmal Sk. Petitioner

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly,
Ms. Shreyashee Biswas,
Mr. Anirban Sarkar for the petitioner

Ms. Faria Hossain
Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Beg for the State

Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the

case diary.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is in custody

for 122 days. He further submits that his client is the near relation with the

family of the victim and he is a former member of a local Gram Panchayat. He

further submits that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted

and, therefore, the petitioner’s prayer for bail may be considered favourably.
2

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for

bail and submits that this is a case, where the victim was killed at her

matrimonial home by her husband and son and prior to that occurrence, a

village salish was called and as she was not able to attend such salish due to her

illness, she was assaulted and the petitioner was one of the assailants. In this

regard, she draws our attention to the statements of the local people, which are

at pages 9, 10, 25 and 26 of the case diary.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted us to look at

the statements of two other minor sons of the victim.

Going through the same, we find that those statements are at pages 23 and

24 of the case diary that runs contrary to the statements of the witnesses, to

which our attention was earlier drawn at pages 9, 10, 25 and 26 thereof. We find

in the statements made by these two minor sons that there is no allegation that

the victim before her murder, was assaulted by this petitioner.

Now, having regard to the facts, as above and even, if we take into

consideration the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the

offence by the witnesses to their statements which are at pages 9, 10, 25 and 26

of the case diary and considering the petitioner’s extent of involvement transpires

therefrom, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for granting bail.

Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.

20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the

satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda subject to the condition that
3

after release, the petitioner shall meet the Investigation Officer of this case, once in every

week, until further orders.

The application for bail is thus disposed of.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *