An Application For Bail Under … vs In Re: Sulekha Sarkar on 14 July, 2017

1

16 14.07.2017

SK Court No.26
CRM 6304 of 2017

In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.06.2017 in connection
with Gaighata Police Station Case No. 158/2017 dated
24.02.2017 under
Sections 498A/326/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

And

In Re: Sulekha Sarkar Petitioner.

Mrs. Rupna Bhattacharjee Ray ……For the Petitioner.

Mr. Anowar Hossain,
Mrs. Ratna Ghosh … For the State.

Leave is granted to correct the cause title.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties. Perused the Case Diary.

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the

victim/housewife.

It is vehemently contended that this petitioner is in

custody for 140 days. It is further submitted that investigation is

over and charge-sheet has been submitted and out of three

charge-sheeted accused two are on bail granted by this Hon’ble

Court, therefore, her prayer for bail also be considered

favourably.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State

handed over to us to a server copy of an order passed in

connection with C.R.M. No. 4789 of 2017 and submits that the
2

same Bench on the same day however rejected the prayer for bail

of the present petitioner, but such fact has not been disclosed in

this application and this is actually practicing fraud upon the

court. He then submits that the prayer for bail was rejected

because of the reason that there is a dying declaration made by

the victim soon before her death, in which she implicated the

READ  Balwant Singh vs Partap Singh And Ors. on 29 March, 2000

present petitioner, her mother-in-law, as the accused, who set

her on fire.

We have gone through the case diary.

Now, considering the facts as above and the nature and

seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, the

application for bail is rejected.

Office is directed to immediately communicate this order

to the learned court below for his future reference and the

counsel for the State is also directed to retain in the case diary

both the orders passed by the vacation Bench as well as this

court rejecting the application for bail, that is also for future

reference.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)
3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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