An Application For Anticipatory … vs Hosenara Begum @ Hosenara Begum … on 20 July, 2017

1

Sl No. 997
20.07.2017

Rejected
AJ.

C.R.M. 5511 of 2017
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure presented on 07.06.2017.

And
In the matter of : Hosenara Begum @ Hosenara Begum Mollick.

…….. petitioner.

Mr. Tauhid Khan. … for the petitioner.

Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. A.P.P.,
Mr. Monoranjan Mahata. … for the State.

Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Panchla Police Station
FIR No. 375/2014 dated 21.12.2014 under
Sections 498A/304B/302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the
petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that upon completion of
investigation, police report under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (charge-sheet) has already been submitted under
Sections
498A/
304B/306/34 before the relevant magistrate and, therefore, there is no
need for custodial interrogation. He has, thus, prayed for pre-arrest bail.

Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
submits that this is the second application of the petitioner after rejection of the
first application by order dated 31st March, 2015 passed in C.R.M. 2798 of 2015.
According to him, there is no substantial change of circumstances warranting
grant of relief in this application.

In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that filing of charge
sheet inter alia under
Section 306 instead of under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code ought to be considered as a substantial change of circumstances.

READ  State Of Maharashtra-vs-Suresh Vithoba Patil And Anr. on 3 February, 2005

We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
in the case diary. We have also perused the order passed by the co-ordinate
2

Bench in C.R.M.2798 of 2015, available at page ’10’ of the application. Having
regard to the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed coupled with the
level of complicity of the petitioner, the co-ordinate Bench considered it to be not
a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

We find no reason to take a different view. Culmination of the investigation
in filing of charge sheet, even under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
strengthens the prosecution case and is not a substantial change of
circumstances in favour of the petitioner.

Exercise of discretionary powers is not warranted. The application stands
rejected.

( Dipankar Datta, J.)

( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

Leave a Comment

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