SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sections 3/4 Of The Dowry … vs In Re: Radharani Bera & Ors on 10 July, 2018



Sl. No.58
C. R. M. 4568 of 2018

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 06.07.2018 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 23 of
2018 dated 31.01.2018 under Sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (G.R. Case No. 121 of 2018)


In Re: Radharani Bera Ors.

… … Petitioners
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee .. Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Ghosh Chowdhury .. Advocate
Ms. Moumita Pandit .. Advocate
Mr. Nazir Ahmed .. Advocate
… … for the petitioners

Mr. Saibal Bapuli .. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
Mr. Arani Bhattacharya .. Advocate
… … for the State

Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the mother in

law and the petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law of the victim-housewife while the petitioner

no.3 is the married sister-in-law of the said housewife who did not reside at the

matrimonial home of 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. We find prima facie involvement

of the petitioner nos.1 2 in torturing the victim-housewife who suffered unnatural death

within three years of her marriage. Hence, we are not inclined in granting anticipatory bail

to the accused/petitioner nos.1 2.


Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused/petitioner nos.1 2

namely, (1) Radharani Bera (2) Gaurhari Bera @ Gourhari Bera is rejected.

However, in view of the fact that the truthfulness of the allegation of torture by

the petitioner no.3 upon the victim-housewife is to be assessed in the backdrop of the fact

that she did not reside at the matrimonial home of the victim and that she is a lady, we are

of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner no.3 is not necessary

in the facts of the present case and she may be granted anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the accused/petitioner no.3,

namely (3) Lakshmirani Bera @ Kamala Bera @ Laxmi Bera, be released on bail upon

furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), 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.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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