An Application For Bail Under … vs In Re: Mahadeb Ghosh & Anr on 25 August, 2017

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.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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