1

37 27.04.2017

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.

And

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
2

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
3

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.)