An Application For Bail Under … vs In Re.: Rekha Sanyal on 7 July, 2017

1

184.
07.07.2017

.

ap
CRAN 2088 of 2017
In
C.R.A. 260 of 2017

In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure being CRAN 2088 of 2017 filed on
08.05.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 03(03)04
corresponding to Sessions Case No. 20(02)03.

And
In re.: Rekha Sanyal. … Appellant.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Rahul Ganguly. … for the Appellant.

Mr. Sudip Ghosh,
Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta. …. for the State

This appellant with three others were placed on trial to answer

charges for the offence punishable under Sections

498A/406/304B/306/34 IPC. During the trial, one of the accused,

namely, the father-in-law died. Finally, the trial ended in conviction

of the two appellants, namely, mother-in-law and husband under

Sections 304B/498A IPC with a sentence to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for ten years and three years respectively and to pay

fine with default clause for their conviction under Section 498A IPC.

Against such order of conviction and sentence, a statutory

appeal has been preferred by the two appellants, which has already

been admitted.

2

Now, with the liberty granted by this court admitting the

appeal, the appellant, namely, the mother-in-law, has approached

this court for suspension of sentence and her release on bail.

Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective

parties. Perused the impugned judgment, the copies of the

depositions of the witnesses produced by the counsel of the appellant

and other materials on record.

Going through the impugned judgment, we find that there was

READ  Shymal Guin And Ors.-vs-State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 12 June, 2003

a dying declaration (marked as Exhibit 17) recorded by an Executive

Magistrate, who was examined as PW/16 and in that dying

declaration, the victim housewife disclosed that she caught fire

accidentally while cooking. Furthermore, we find that the

prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW/1 (mother of the

victim) and the PW/2 (father of the victim) and although both of

them claimed in their evidence that two days before the occurrence,

their daughter came to their house and complained about the torture

perpetrated upon her by this appellant for demand of dowry but

when they were cross-examined as regards to the question of

disclosure of such facts to the police, they took a plea that they could

not recollect, whether they have disclosed such facts to the

Investigating Officer of the case or not and from the evidence of the

Investigating Officer of the case (PW/21), we find that such fact was

not told to him.

3

Before taking any decision in the matter, we accorded an

opportunity to the learned counsel for the State, since objection was

raised vehemently from the side of the State, to file his written

objection in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Atul Tripathi vs. State of U.P., reported in (2014) 9

SCC 177, and in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section

389 CrPC, but he declined to file the same in writing and intended to

resist this application orally on the strength of the available

materials on record.

READ  Devidas-vs-State Of Maharashtra on 2 August, 2004

Now, having regard to the facts as above and considering the

findings on which the impugned order of conviction is based and the

grounds on which the same is under challenge, we are of the opinion

that an arguable case has been made out by the appellant showing

her possibilities of success in appeal.

Accordingly, we direct that pending hearing of the appeal, the

order of execution of sentence shall remain suspended and the

appellant shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Alipore upon

furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/-

each, one of whom must be local.

The application for suspension of sentence being CRAN 2088

of 2017 stands disposed of.

4

It goes without saying whatsoever we have observed

hereinabove must not be construed to our opinion on the merits of

the case and we make it clear such observation was called for due to

the various points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

We further make it clear that this observation shall have no bearing

on the final hearing of the appeal.

Since LCR have not yet been received by the Department in

spite of requisition made, Office is directed to call for the same once

again and shall prepare requisite number of paper books within six

months from this date and as soon as the preparation of paper books

is complete and appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be

listed for hearing before the appropriate bench.

READ  State Of Maharashtra-vs-Sahebrao And Ors. on 28 July, 2004

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Comment

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