SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ehesanul Hoque @ Ahesanul Hoque vs Unknown on 13 March, 2020

1

Court No. C.R.R. 946 of 2020
32
Sl 51
Ssi
In the matter of :- Ehesanul Hoque @ Ahesanul Hoque
13.3.

2020

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya
Mr. Abdur Rakib

…..for the petitioner

This is an application challenging an order dated 03.03.2020

passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Chanchal, Malda,

thereby rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for discharge in a case where

a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302 and 498A read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner is a respected person of the locality where

the incident happened. He is not even related to the victim’s in laws.

The only allegation that comes out of the statements of witnesses

recorded under Section 161 of the Code as regards the present

petitioner is that the in-laws of the victim often used to go to the

present petitioner to relate to him the facts as he was an eminent

person of the locality. There are other statements of local witnesses

which make it clear that the present petitioner never went to the

maternal house of the victim. It appears that some local witnesses

gave statements that the victim’s in-laws were seen leaving the place

of occurrence after the incident. As such, there was no material

whatsoever to connect the present petitioner to the alleged offences.

The learned trial court failed to appreciate this and erred in rejecting

the application for discharge of the present petitioner.

Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the

State through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite

party no.2 by speed post with acknowledgment due, within a week.

An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of

hearing.

Let this matter appear as a “Contested Application” two weeks

hence.

The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed so
2

far as the present petitioner is concerned for a period of six weeks

from this date.

The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension or

modification or vacating of the interim order upon notice to the other

side.

The State is directed to produce the case diary on the next

date of hearing.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied

to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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