C.R.M. 13021 of 2017
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.12.2017 in connection
with Women Police Station Jalpaiguri Case No.143 of 2017 dated
18.11.2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In the matter of : Sukla Roy.
Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Santanu Maji, Adv.,
Mr. Anubhuti Ganguly, Adv.
…For the Petitioner.
Mr. Swpan Banerjee, Adv.,
Mrs. Purnima Ghosh, Adv.
…..For the State.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Parties.
Presence of the I.O. is noted and dispensed with.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was a
young girl who was the daughter of the sister-in-law of the
deceased housewife and did not reside permanently at the
matrimonial home of the victim. It is further submitted that the
petitioner did not play any role in the matrimonial life of the couple
and as the alleged incident occurred beyond seven years of
marriage the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code
is not be attracted in the facts of the case.
Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that there
are ample evidence collected in the course of investigation to show
that the petitioner not only resided at the matrimonial home of the
victim but in fact was present on the date of occurrence when the
victim suffered burn injuries and ultimately died.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We
find that the petitioner is a young lady in her early 20’s and was
the daughter of the sister-in-law of the victim housewife. The
husband and the mother-in-law have already been arrested. It is
true that the statements of the witnesses speak of the presence of
the petitioner at the matrimonial home of the victim at the time of
occurrence. However, there is no direct evidence as to the role
played by the petitioner in the torture of the housewife and
keeping in mind her relationship and the fact that she was a
young girl pursuing her education, we are of the opinion that she
does not stand in the same footing as the co-accused persons viz.,
the husband and mother-in-law of the victim housewife who have
already been arrested.
We also note that there is nothing on record to show that the
unnatural death of the housewife occurred within seven years of
marriage and, therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the offence
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in the
facts of the case.
In view of the aforesaid facts and particularly the young age
of the petitioner who was pursuing her education, we feel that she
does not stand on the same footing as the co-accused persons who
have been arrested and anticipatory bail may be granted to her.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the
petitioner, namely, Sukla Roy shall be released on bail upon
furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)