SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

An Application For Anticipatory … vs Unknown on 4 September, 2017


4.09.2017 C.R.M. 7468 of 2017

0 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1st August, 2017.

c And
In the matter of : 1. Dudh Kumar Mondal, 2. Raj Kumar Mondal,

3. Bhulinai Mondal @ Bhule Mondal, 4. Chapala Mondal,

5. Mongola Mondal, 6. Bonita Mondal 7. Ranu Mondal @
Runu Mondal.


Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya
Mr. Rohit Jalan.

….. For the Petitioners.
Mr. Madhusudan Sur
Mr. Manoranjan Mahata.
….. For the State.

Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Uluberia Police Station FIR No.
795 of 2015 dated 25.10.2015 under sections 498A/304B/302/201 of the Indian Penal
Code and sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners have applied for
anticipatory bail.

We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in
the case diary. It appears that after 39 days of the alleged incident, the FIR was
registered. Allegedly, the victim was set on fire and then thrown in a pond and
thereafter cremated without post mortem examination being conducted.

Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the statements of
the neighbours of the petitioners recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.), available at pages 61, 62, 65 and 66 of the case diary.
According to him, it is on the basis of these statements that custodial interrogation of
the petitioners would be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical conclusion.

We have found from page 15 of the case diary the statement of another neighbour,
recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. suggesting that the petitioners were present at
the site of cremation of the victim. The reason as to why the neighbours whose
statements are available at pages 61, 62, 65 and 66 of the case diary did not complain to
the police earlier, has not been explained.

In such view of the matter and having regard to the level of complicity of the
petitioners, as revealed from the case diary, we are of the opinion that their custodial

interrogation is not necessary for effective and meaningful progress of investigation of
the FIR and that they are entitled to direction as prayed for in the application.

The application, thus, stands allowed with the direction that in the event of
arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each one of whom must be
local to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions laid down in
sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

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

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 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