CRAN 2088 of 2017
C.R.A. 260 of 2017
In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure being CRAN 2088 of 2017 filed on
08.05.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 03(03)04
corresponding to Sessions Case No. 20(02)03.
In re.: Rekha Sanyal. … Appellant.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Rahul Ganguly. … for the Appellant.
Mr. Sudip Ghosh,
Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta. …. for the State
This appellant with three others were placed on trial to answer
charges for the offence punishable under Sections
498A/406/304B/306/34 IPC. During the trial, one of the accused,
namely, the father-in-law died. Finally, the trial ended in conviction
of the two appellants, namely, mother-in-law and husband under
Sections 304B/498A IPC with a sentence to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and three years respectively and to pay
fine with default clause for their conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Against such order of conviction and sentence, a statutory
appeal has been preferred by the two appellants, which has already
Now, with the liberty granted by this court admitting the
appeal, the appellant, namely, the mother-in-law, has approached
this court for suspension of sentence and her release on bail.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Perused the impugned judgment, the copies of the
depositions of the witnesses produced by the counsel of the appellant
and other materials on record.
Going through the impugned judgment, we find that there was
a dying declaration (marked as Exhibit 17) recorded by an Executive
Magistrate, who was examined as PW/16 and in that dying
declaration, the victim housewife disclosed that she caught fire
accidentally while cooking. Furthermore, we find that the
prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW/1 (mother of the
victim) and the PW/2 (father of the victim) and although both of
them claimed in their evidence that two days before the occurrence,
their daughter came to their house and complained about the torture
perpetrated upon her by this appellant for demand of dowry but
when they were cross-examined as regards to the question of
disclosure of such facts to the police, they took a plea that they could
not recollect, whether they have disclosed such facts to the
Investigating Officer of the case or not and from the evidence of the
Investigating Officer of the case (PW/21), we find that such fact was
not told to him.
Before taking any decision in the matter, we accorded an
opportunity to the learned counsel for the State, since objection was
raised vehemently from the side of the State, to file his written
objection in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Atul Tripathi vs. State of U.P., reported in (2014) 9
SCC 177, and in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section
389 CrPC, but he declined to file the same in writing and intended to
resist this application orally on the strength of the available
materials on record.
Now, having regard to the facts as above and considering the
findings on which the impugned order of conviction is based and the
grounds on which the same is under challenge, we are of the opinion
that an arguable case has been made out by the appellant showing
her possibilities of success in appeal.
Accordingly, we direct that pending hearing of the appeal, the
order of execution of sentence shall remain suspended and the
appellant shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Alipore upon
furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/-
each, one of whom must be local.
The application for suspension of sentence being CRAN 2088
of 2017 stands disposed of.
It goes without saying whatsoever we have observed
hereinabove must not be construed to our opinion on the merits of
the case and we make it clear such observation was called for due to
the various points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
We further make it clear that this observation shall have no bearing
on the final hearing of the appeal.
Since LCR have not yet been received by the Department in
spite of requisition made, Office is directed to call for the same once
again and shall prepare requisite number of paper books within six
months from this date and as soon as the preparation of paper books
is complete and appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be
listed for hearing before the appropriate bench.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)