1
16
25.08.2017
sm
Allowed
CRM No.8078 of 2017
In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 16.08.2017 in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case
No.739 of 2016 dated 31.07.2016 under sections 498A/326A/307/34/376/511 of
the Indian Penal Code
.
And
In re: Mahadeb Ghosh Anr. … Petitioners (in jail)
Ms.Sreyashee Biswas
Mr.Prasun Chakraboty … for the petitioners
Mr.Prasun Dutta, Ld.APP
Mr.Suman Saha. .. for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused
the case diary.
Yesterday, when this matter was taken up for hearing, we were informed
by Mr.Pradipta Ganguly, learned advocate for the State, on instructions, that the
learned advocate for the State, Mr.Suman Saha, has not received the case diary.
In that backdrop, we directed the personal appearance of the Investigating Officer
of the case.
Today, when this matter is taken up for hearing, we found that the case
diary was received by the learned advocate for the State on August 21, 2017. It is
best known to the learned advocate for the State that in spite of receipt of the case
diary, why we were told that the case diary has not been sent and due to that
reason, we insisted the personal appearance of the Investigating Officer of the
case for no fault of him. His personal appearance stands dispensed with.
2
As a matter of abundant caution and so that no disciplinary action is taken
against him by the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, we direct that this order
immediately be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad.
Now, coming to the case in hand, we find that the petitioners are the
parents-in-law of the victim-housewife. They are in custody for about 152 days.
Initially, these petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned
court below, subsequently, the de facto complainant of the case moved a co-
ordinate Bench of this court and their bail and they were arrested and taken into
custody.
After their arrest, they also moved this court, when their prayer for bail was
rejected at that stage on June 22, 2017. Admittedly, two other co-accused
persons, viz. husband and sister-in-law, are on bail.
The statement of the victim, to which our attention has been drawn, we
find that indisputedly these petitioners are standing on same footing with the said
two co-accused persons, who are on bail. Such fact has not been disputed by the
learned APP, Mr.Prasun Dutta, The statement is at page 42 of the case diary.
Now, coming to the injury report, we find the following injuries were found
on the person of the victim – “there was no external injury seen on the body
surface except buccul-mucosal erosion and tongue mucosal erosion with minimal
bleeding from the erosion site”.
Now, having regard to above and considering the fact so far as the
allegation is concerned, undoubtedly, these petitioners are standing on same
footing with those co-accused persons, who are on bail, and also considering the
petitioners’ length of detention in custody, we allow the prayer for bail of the
petitioners.
Let the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond
of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of
3
whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Murshidabad
Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.
The office is directed to communicate this order at once to the
Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad.
As a matter of abundant caution, the learned advocate for the
petitioners shall have the liberty to communicate this order to the
Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)