SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Of The Indian Penal Code And … vs In Re: Sk. Habibul Rahaman & Ors on 25 July, 2019

1

25.07.2019

Sl No.42
AP
CRM 6389 of 2019
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed on 19.07.2019 in connection with Anandapur Police
Station Case No. 14/19 dated 02.02.2019 under Sections 498A/Section302/Section201/Section34
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And

In Re: Sk. Habibul Rahaman Ors.

… … Petitioners.

Mr. Pravash Bhattacharya
… for the petitioners.

Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya,
… … for the State.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are in-laws of the

victim housewife and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is

also submitted that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 ordinarily reside at Delhi in

connection with their employment. It is further submitted that the petitioner

No.4, brother-in-law of the deceased housewife, resides in a different village.

Similarly, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 being the married sister-in-law of the victim

housewife ordinarily reside at their matrimonial homes in different villages. It is

claimed that the petitioner No.3, mother-in-law of the housewife, resides with

petitioner No.4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that the victim housewife was set ablaze at her

matrimonial home.

2

Having considered the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the

petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, being in-laws of the victim housewife, do not

ordinarily reside in the matrimonial home of the victim housewife. Under such

circumstances, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.1,

2, 4, 5 and 6.

However, in view of the materials on record disclosing prima facie

involvement of petitioner No.3, mother-in-law of the victim housewife, in the

alleged crime and whose plea of separate residence does not appear to be

convincing, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.3.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4,

5 and 6 be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

thousand only) each, 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 on condition that the

petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 shall appear before the court below and pray for

regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

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

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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