Court No. C.R.R. 946 of 2020
In the matter of :- Ehesanul Hoque @ Ahesanul Hoque
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
Let this matter appear as a “Contested Application” two weeks
The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed so
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
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.)