SK Court No.26
CRM 3586 of 2017
In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.04.2017 in connection
with All Women Jhargram Police Station Case No. 41 dated
11.08.2016 under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In Re: Sk. Jumer Ali @ Jumu Ali Anr. Petitioners.
Mr. Navanil De,
Mrs. Ayantika Roy ……For the Petitioners.
Mrs. Puspita Saha,
Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharyya … For the State.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties. Perused the Case Diary.
The petitioners’ are the brother-in-law and the father-in-
law of the victim/housewife, who was killed by setting her on fire
at her matrimonial home. Investigation of this case is over and
charge-sheet has been submitted.
The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that all
other co-accused are on bail, therefore detention of these
petitioners in custody will not serve any purpose.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State
opposing the prayer bail, draws our attention to the dying
declaration of the victim at page 10 of the case diary and submits
that both the petitioners have been implicated in the said dying
declaration by the victim, may be that the complicity of the
father-in-law, i.e. the petitioner no. 2 is little less.
We have gone through the said dying declaration and find
that the said dying declaration was recorded by the investigating
officer of the case, although the said dying declaration bear
signatures of the Superintendent of that hospital and staff nurse,
but there is no certificate that such dying declaration was
recorded in their presence and at the time of making such
statement she was in a fit state of mind to make such statement.
We further find that the said dying declaration was recorded in
presence of her mother.
Now, going through the case diary, we find that
immediately after the incident she was removed to Kharagpur
Hospital where she was treated for sometime and there her
attending doctor recorded her dying declaration. In that dying
declaration, she only implicated the petitioner no. 1 and another
namely, Sanwar Ali. However, the said Sanwar Ali has been
granted bail by the court below.
Be that as it may, considering the nature of the
allegations and the materials collected in support of the same
and when in the dying declaration made at the first opportunity
by the victim before her attending doctor, she implicated the
petitioner no. 1, as the person responsible for causing her death,
his prayer for bail stands rejected.
However, the petitioner no. 2, the father-in-law, not being
named his prayer for bail stands allowed.
Let the petitioner no. 2 be released on bail to the
satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram
upon furnishing Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.
5,000/- each, one of whom must be local.
The learned court below is directed to immediately
fulfilling the requirements of law to commit the case to the Court
of Sessions for trial.
The instant application for bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)