An Application For Anticipatory … vs Lakhi Mandal @ Menoka @ Menaka … on 14 September, 2017

1

Sl. 452. AJ
14.09.2017

Rejected. C.R.M. 8388 of 2017
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.

And
In the matter of : Lakhi Mandal @ Menoka @ Menaka Mandal.

…….. petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh. … for the petitioner.

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

Apprehending arrest in connection with Jalpaiguri Kotwali Women Police
Station FIR No. 47/15 dated 16.03.2015 under
Sections 498A/302 of the Indian
Penal Code read with
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner
has applied for anticipatory bail.

This is the second application for pre-arrest bail after rejection of the
earlier one (C.R.M. 6691 of 2015) on 21st July, 2015 by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.

Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner citing submission
of police report (charge sheet) under
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, inter alia, under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the
I.P.C.) before the relevant magistrate submits that it is a substantial change of
circumstances for which the petitioner deserves discretionary relief.

The application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Sur, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. According to him, by a
reasoned order the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was rejected on 21st
July, 2015 in C.R.M. 6691 of 2015 and mere filing of charge sheet does not enure
to the benefit of the petitioner.

We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
in the case diary, more particularly the post mortem report at page ’28’ thereof
showing, inter alia, the following injuries:-

2

“6. First and second degree burn injuries over the B/L thighs and
legs all around including dorsum and sole of both feet with charring
bone deep over the antero medial aspect of both legs.”

(underlining for emphasis by us)

Considering such nature of injuries, we are of the clear view that the
accused could have been charged under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. instead of
Section 304B of the I.P.C.

Be that as it may, this is not a fit and proper case for making direction, as
prayed for in this application.

The application, thus, stands rejected.

( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) ( Dipankar Datta, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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