SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay Biswas & Ors vs Unknown on 21 January, 2019


260 21.1.2019

C.R.M.11717 of 2018
In Re: – An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17/12/2018 in
connection with Tahatta P.S. Case No.422 of 2018 dated
08/12/2018 under Sections 498A/307/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

gd And
In the matter of: Sanjay Biswas Ors.
Mr. Asraf Mandal

…for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
…for the State.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Tahatta P.S.

Case No.422 of 2018 dated 08/12/2018 under Sections 498A/307/406/34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners claim that following a misunderstanding with the first

petitioner, his wife left the matrimonial home; but has now brought imaginary

charges against the petitioners.

The State says that the wife has been constrained to leave the

matrimonial home along with her two minor children.

The first petitioner offers to pay maintenance to the extent of

Rs.8,000/- per month for the wife and children. The first petitioner should

immediately make the payment for the month of January, 2019 by the end of

this month and continue to make subsequent payments in similar manner.

In the event the first petitioner does not make payment for any

month, the wife will be entitled to seek the immediate cancellation of bail.

In the event the wife is awarded any alimony pendente lite or

maintenance or the like by any other appropriate forum, the payments made

in terms of this order will be adjusted against the same.

Subject to the above, in the event of arrest, the petitioners are

directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the

Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In addition, the petitioners will also report

to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the

concerned police officer.

The investigating officer is directed to accompany the wife to the

matrimonial home to seize the stridhan articles and make over the same to

the complainant upon obtaining a valid receipt. If the first petitioner claims

that most of the stridhan articles have been taken away by the wife during her

departure from the matrimonial home, an adverse inference may be drawn

against the petitioners and the wife will be entitled to seek cancellation.

The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions

indicated above.

A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the

petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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