CRM 1501 of 2018
In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with Ashoknagar P.S. Case
No.420 of 2017 dated 21.05.2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34
of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No.1857 of
In the matter of : Pritam Nag
Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saryati Dutta, Adv.
….. For the Petitioner
Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Trina Mitra, Adv.
….. For the State
Mr. S. Hasan, Adv.
….. For de facto complainant
Report is filed on behalf of the State wherefrom it appears that
date has been fixed for recording of evidence of the witnesses.
Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 10 months and that
there is hardly any likelihood for concluding the trial in the near future.
It is further submitted that the co-accused persons are on bail. It is
also submitted that on earlier occasions his prayer for bail was rejected
on an erroneous reading of the suicide note by this Court.
Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate for the State produces the case
diary and opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the victim
committed suicide within one year of her marriage. There are
statements of witnesses that the victim was tortured at the behest of
the petitioner. He, however, admitted that in the suicide note at page
199 of the case diary the victim while speaking of great pain and agony
compelling her to choose the path of self-termination had not blamed
Examining the orders rejecting the prayer for bail on earlier
occasions, we find that one of the issues which weighed with this Court
was the fact that the suicide note of the victim implicated the
petitioner. Such finding does not appear to be in consonance to the
suicide note at page 199 of the case diary. In the said suicide note the
victim stated that she had decided to end her life as she was suffering
from great agony. However, she did not blame anyone for such
situation. No doubt, contents of such note are to be examined in the
factual matrix of the case and cannot be taken simply on its face value.
However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that in the said suicide note
the petitioner had not been specifically implicated. It is trite law that
weighty reasons are required to favourably consider the bail prayer of
an accused which had been repeatedly rejected earlier and appropriate
reasons are to be assigned to come to a different conclusion in such a
case. [See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2017 SC 3986 (para-22].
Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and
keeping in mind the period of detention suffered by the petitioner and
in view of the fact that recording of evidence has not been commenced
as yet, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail
upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with
two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, South 24
Parganas on condition that he shall not intimidate the witnesses
and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not
commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial
Court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his
bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to
The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)