SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay Malik vs Unknown on 18 February, 2019



RP 43
CRM 11099 of 2018
In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kalna Police Station
Case No.49/18 dated 05.02.2018 under Section
498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/
4 of DP Act..

In the matter of : Sanjay Malik
…. Petitioner

Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Adv.

….. For the Petitioner

Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya, Adv.

….. For the State
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and he is

innocent and in no way connected with the offence alleged against

him and further that the victim died at her paternal house. He

further submits that other accused persons were granted

anticipatory bail by this Court and the petitioner is in custody for

311 days. He also submits that investigation has concluded and

charge sheet has been submitted and there is no need for further

detention of the petitioner.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State by

producing the case diary opposes the prayer for bail and submits

that a charge sheet has been submitted and charge was framed on

16th February, 2019 and the next date is fixed for evidence. He

further submits that the victim died within three months of her

marriage and on that very night the petitioner was staying with the

victim at her father’s house and on the relevant night he was along

with the victim inside the room.

We have considered the submissions of the learned

Advocates appearing for the parties and have perused the case

diary including the statement of the witnesses recorded under

Section 161 CrPC.

Admittedly, prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on

14.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 in CRM 3761 of 2018 and CRM 6416

of 2018 respectively.

Having considered the nature and gravity of the offence and

the materials in the case diary showing prima facie involvement of

the petitioner in the commission of offence, we are not inclined to

grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.

CRM 11099 of 2018 is thus disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance
of all formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, 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