In Re:- Dipanjan Samanta vs Re: An Application For Bail Under … on 15 May, 2017

1

65 15.5.2017

C.R.M. No.4191 of 2017
p.d.

In re:- Dipanjan Samanta …. Petitioner.

-And-

Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 11.5.2017 in connection
with Malipanchghora Police Station Case No.305 dated 5.12.2016 under sections 498A/304B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly,
Ms. Sreyashee Biswas,
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt … For the petitioner.

Mr. S.G.Mukherjee, P.P.,
Mrs. Amita Gaur …. For the State.

Mr. Madhu Jana … For the de facto complainant.

Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the

parties.

The petitioner is the husband, who is in custody for 130

days and investigation is over and charge sheet has been submitted.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is

true that the victim committed suicide within four months from her

marriage but before her death, she left a suicide note, in which she

disclosed that none is responsible for her death and she committed

suicide without any instigation.

The learned Counsel for the State, however, has not

disputed such contention and submits that it is true that a suicide

note has been recovered.

At this stage, Mr. Madhu Jana, the learned Counsel for the

de facto complainant disputed such contention and he vehemently

contends that such suicide note is forged and manufactured one.
2

Having regard to that, we have restrained ourselves from

passing any order without knowing the report of Handwriting Expert

and adjourned the hearing.

Now, the learned Counsel for the State obtains instructions

and submits that Handwriting Expert’s report has been received by

READ  Phool Wati & Anr. (In J.C.) vs State on 11 February, 2014

the police and it is found that her specimen writing has been

matched with the writing in the suicide note and the same is

genuine.

Having regard to above, we allow the petitioner’s prayer for

bail.

Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a

bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of

whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Howrah.

Before parting with, we must say that this is a fit case,

where for disrupting the court’s proceeding and wasting court’s time,

exemplary costs be imposed against the de facto complainant.

We, therefore, direct that the de facto complainant, Ashish

Set, who is a resident of 4/6, Kamini School Lane, P.S.
3

Malipanchghora, Howrah, to be present in Court personally on

tomorrow, i.e. 16th May, 2017 at 10-30 a.m.

List it again on 16th May, 2017 for further order.

This order shall be communicated to him by his learned

Counsel Mr. Madhu Jana as also by the learned Counsel for the

State through the investigating officer of the case.

We make it clear that if the de facto complainant does not

appear before us on the aforesaid date, we have no other option but

to issue warrant of arrest against him and he be taken into custody.

The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.

Let plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the

Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State on usual

READ  Laxmi Narain vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 December, 2012

undertaking.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )

Leave a Comment

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