SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sections 3/4 Of The Dp Act vs Allowed In Re : Debasis Roy @ … on 25 November, 2019

1

25.11.2019
tkm/ct 28 C.R.M. 10952 of 2019
sl no. 83

In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Sectionsection 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure filed on 22.11.2019 in connection with
Pandabeswar P.S case no. 116 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019 under Sectionsections
498A/Section323/Section325/Section307/Section376/Section511/Section406/Section506/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sections 3/4 of the DP Act
and
Allowed In Re : Debasis Roy @ Debasish Roy Ors. …… petitioners

Mr Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S K Dan
…… for the petitioners
Mr. I Ali
Mr. MFA Begg
…… for the State

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

4 is the husband of the victim housewife and the other petitioners

are her in-laws of the victim housewife. They have been falsely

implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that the

victim was a temperamental lady and had ingested poison and was

hospitalized and false case was registered against them.

Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners and other in-laws

had subjected the victim housewife to torture on demand of dowry.

We have considered the materials on record. Statement of the

victim with regard to the forcible ingestion of poison at the behest of

the petitioners is not corroborated by the entries made in the

medical papers at page 63 of the case diary which speak of self-

inflicted injury. However, there are materials to show that the

petitioner no. 3 and 4 subjected her to torture over demands of
2

dowry. The allegations of torture against other petitioners are

general and omnibus in nature and as petitioner nos. 5 and 7 i.e.

the married sisters in law of the victim housewife and their

husbands i.e. petitioner nos. 1 and 6 ordinarily did not reside at the

matrimonial home of the victim housewife, we are of the opinion

that complicity of the said petitioners may be assessed at the

appropriate stage of the proceeding in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to petitioner nos. 3 and 4 herein.

However, bearing in mind the extent of complicity of petitioner

nos. 1, 2 5, 6 and 7 herein in the alleged crime, we are inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to them.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the

petitioner nos. 1, 2 5, 6 and 7 herein shall be released on bail upon

furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- 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 Sectionsection 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that petitioner nos. 1, 2 5, 6

and 7 herein shall appear before the court below and pray for

regular bail within four weeks from date.

The application being CRM 10952 of 2019 is disposed of.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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