SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Of The Prohibition Act vs In Re: Smt. Sagari Mete @ Sagarika … on 27 February, 2019

1

27.02.2019
114

sdas
Partly
allowed

C. R. M. No. 2375 of 2019

In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.02.2019 in connection with
Nanoor Police Station Case No. 207 of 2018 dated 11.10.2018 under
Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4
of the Prohibition Act.

And
In Re: Smt. Sagari Mete @ Sagarika Mete Ors. …….. petitioners

Md. Sabir Ahmed,
Mr. Apan Saha
…for the petitioners

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned P.P.,
Mr. Aniket Mitra
…. for the State

Liberty is granted to the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners to amend the cause title.

It is submitted on behalf of the State that warrant, proclamation

and attachment have been issued against the petitioners and hence the

application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. We have examined

the materials on record. We find that the statutory pre-requisites for

issuance of the aforesaid processes were not complied with and therefore

the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the basis of issuance of such

illegal processes.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners

that they are in-laws of the victim housewife and falsely implicated in the

instant case.

2

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners subjected the victim

housewife to torture and consequentially she suffered unnatural death.

Having considered the materials in the case diary disclosing prima

facie involvement of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, being parents-in-law of

the victim housewife, in the torture of the victim resulting in her

unnatural death, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.

Accordingly application for anticipatory bail so far as petitioner nos.

1 and 2 concerned is rejected.

However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of the petitioners

no. 3 and 4 herein in the alleged crime, we are inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to them.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners no.

3 and 4 shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-

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 further

condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for

regular bail within a period of fortnight from date..

Accordingly application for anticipatory bail so far as petitioners

no. 3 and 4 concerned is allowed.

(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3

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