SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

3/4 Of The Dowry Prohibition Act vs In Re : Mainul Hoque & Ors on 15 November, 2019

1

15.11.2019
104

sdas
Partly allowed

C.R.M. 10570 of 2019

In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 14.11.2019 in connection with Kaliaganj Police
Station Case No. 215 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019 under Sections
498A/Section497/Section323/Section328/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And
In Re : Mainul Hoque Ors. ….. petitioners

Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta,
Mr. Pronojit Roy
… for the petitioners

Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee
… for the State

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner no. 1 poured kerosene oil

on the victim and tried to kill her.

Having considered the materials on record prima facie

disclosing involvement of petitioner no. 1 , husband of the victim

housewife, in attempting to kill her resulting in her hospitalisation, we

are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of petitioner no. 1 is

necessary and this is not a fit case in granting anticipatory bail to him.
2

The application for anticipatory bail in so far as petitioner no. 1

concerned is, thus, rejected.

However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of the

petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the alleged crime, we are inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to them.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners

no. 2 and 3 shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of

Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the

conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before

the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks

from date.

Accordingly application for anticipatory bail is allowed so far as

petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned.

(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation