SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Debdulal Patra & Anr vs Unknown on 13 March, 2019

1

63 13.03.2019 C.R.M. 2670 of 2019
Aloke Court 28

In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.03.2019 in connection with
Junput Coastal P.S. Case No.81 of 2018 dated 06.12.2018 under
Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And

In the matter of: Debdulal Patra Anr.

…Petitioners
Mr. Amitabha Karmakar
Mr. Arup Kr. Bhowmick
… for the petitioners
Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Ms. Purnima Ghosh
… for the State
Mr. Navnil De
Partly Mr. R. Chakraborty
Allowed … for the de facto complainant

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are the

in-laws of the victim-housewife and have been falsely implicated in the

instant case. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is the sister-

in-law of the victim-housewife and has 6 year old child and has been

falsely implicated in the instant case.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that victim committed suicide within 12

days of marriage as dowry was demanded for the business of the

husband and other family members.

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant also opposes the

prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the prayer for

anticipatory bail of father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim-

housewife have been turned down by this Court.

We have considered the materials on record. We find that the

victim committed suicide within 12 days of marriage due to torture for

non-payment of dowry for commencement of business of the husband

and other family members. We note that the husband has been

released on regular bail. Although, petitioner no. 1, brother-in-law of

the victim-housewife may have interest in the business for which the

dowry was demanded, there is nothing on record to show that
2

petitioner no. 2, wife of petitioner no. 1 had played any role in the said

business wherein dowry had been demanded. That apart, petitioner

no. 2 is a lady who has a 6 year old child. Hence, we are of the opinion

she does not stand on the same footing with the co-accuseds whose

prayer for anticipatory bail had been rejected. Her prayer for

anticipatory bail may be granted but we are not inclined to grant bail

to petitioner no. 1 in the alleged crime.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the

petitioner no. 2 shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of

Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like

amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be

subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and she shall appear before the

court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.

The application for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 2 is,

accordingly, allowed.

The application for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1 is,

accordingly, rejected.

Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal

formalities.

(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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