C.R.M. No. 88 of 2019
Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21st December, 2018.
Munsi Manjur Rahaman @ Manjur Munsi Kazi
Mr. Subrata Bhattacharjya
.. for the Petitioner
Mrs. Sujata Das
.. for the State
Ms. Minoti Gomes
… for the De facto complainant
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with
Pandaveswar Police Station Case No. 115 of 2018, dated
4.10.2018 under Sections 498A/323/307/406/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Pursuant to the order dated January 15, 2019, the wife is
present in Court and is represented by Advocate.
The order dated January 15, 2019 recorded that the
petitioning husband was willing to live with his wife. However, it
is submitted on behalf of the wife that the extent of torture on
the wife and the minor son is unbearable and the wife has no
faith in the husband to return to him, particularly as she feels
insecure about her child.
It is the further case of the wife that all the gifts that she had
carried at the time of her marriage, have been used by the
husband or disposed of or wrongfully dealt with. The wife refers
to gold jewellery, a motorcycle and several other items, including
valuable furniture. However, there is no immediate evidence of
such gifts having been given at the time of marriage.
Since a submission is made on behalf of the wife that the
wife requires financial support to maintain herself and the minor
son, the petitioner offers a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Upon
the petitioner apprehending that such amount may not meet the
approval of the Court, the quantum has been increased to Rs.
4,000/- per month, but it is unthinkable in this day and age how
the wife and son would survive on such paltry amount.
The State has produced the case diary and refers to the
statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the
Code. Some of the statements of the neighbours as to the
continuous ill-treatment of the wife and endless demands for
dowry have also been placed.
Considering the overall conduct of the husband in refusing to
part with the wife’s gifts, of apparently having ill-treated the wife
during her stay at the matrimonial home and the other material
as evident from the records, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
CRM 88 of 2019 is dismissed.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)