C. R. M. 4068 of 2018
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 20.06.2018 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 260
of 2017 dated 02.08.2017 under Sections 498A/323/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (G.R. Case No. 359 of 2017)
In Re: Ranjit Bagdi Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Kunal Ganguly .. Advocate
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Sudip Ghosh .. Advocate
Mr. Bitasok Banerjee .. Advocate
… … for the State
Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are the in-laws of the victim-
housewife and that the incident arose over a dispute between the husband and the victim.
Learned advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
We have considered the materials on record including the statements of
neighbours stating that there was a dispute between the husband and the victim
immediately prior to the incident. Keeping in mind the extent of complicity of the
petitioners in the alleged crime and the fact that the principal accused i.e. the husband of
the victim is on regular bail, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the
accused/petitioners may not be necessary in the facts of the present case and they may
be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners,
namely (1) Ranjit Bagdi, (2) Pinki Bagdi (3) Nandi Bagdi, 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 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)