1

10.01.2018

.

58.
(Allowed).

C.R.M. 13021 of 2017

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.12.2017 in connection
with Women Police Station Jalpaiguri Case No.143 of 2017 dated
18.11.2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the matter of : Sukla Roy.

… Petitioner.

Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.,
Mr. Santanu Maji, Adv.,
Mr. Anubhuti Ganguly, Adv.

…For the Petitioner.

Mr. Swpan Banerjee, Adv.,
Mrs. Purnima Ghosh, Adv.

…..For the State.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Parties.

Presence of the I.O. is noted and dispensed with.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was a

young girl who was the daughter of the sister-in-law of the

deceased housewife and did not reside permanently at the

matrimonial home of the victim. It is further submitted that the

petitioner did not play any role in the matrimonial life of the couple

and as the alleged incident occurred beyond seven years of
2

marriage the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code

is not be attracted in the facts of the case.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that there

are ample evidence collected in the course of investigation to show

that the petitioner not only resided at the matrimonial home of the

victim but in fact was present on the date of occurrence when the

victim suffered burn injuries and ultimately died.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We

find that the petitioner is a young lady in her early 20’s and was

the daughter of the sister-in-law of the victim housewife. The

husband and the mother-in-law have already been arrested. It is

true that the statements of the witnesses speak of the presence of

the petitioner at the matrimonial home of the victim at the time of

occurrence. However, there is no direct evidence as to the role

played by the petitioner in the torture of the housewife and

keeping in mind her relationship and the fact that she was a

young girl pursuing her education, we are of the opinion that she

does not stand in the same footing as the co-accused persons viz.,

the husband and mother-in-law of the victim housewife who have

already been arrested.

We also note that there is nothing on record to show that the

unnatural death of the housewife occurred within seven years of

marriage and, therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the offence
3

under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in the

facts of the case.

In view of the aforesaid facts and particularly the young age

of the petitioner who was pursuing her education, we feel that she

does not stand on the same footing as the co-accused persons who

have been arrested and anticipatory bail may be granted to her.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the

petitioner, namely, Sukla Roy shall be released on bail upon

furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount

each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the

conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)