1

06.02.2019

Ct.42
RP 37
CRM 1530 of 2019

In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with Monteswar Police Station
Case No.304 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018 under Sections
498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And

In the matter of : Uttam Ghosh Anr.

…. Petitioners

Mr. S.S. Imam, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prabir Kumar Das, Adv.

Ms. Shaika Khan, Adv.

Ms. Urm Maria Sami, Adv.

….. For the Petitioners

Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Amita Gaur, Adv.

….. For the State

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that victim (since deceased) was married to the son of the

petitioners about 17 years ago. He further submits that although it is

alleged by the de facto complainant/father of the victim lady that the

accused had tortured the victim for last 17 years, there is no material

forthcoming to suggest that any complaint was lodged from their end

in all the years. He contends that the main allegations are against

the husband of the victim and there is hardly anything against the

present petitioners that could warrant their further detention in
2

custody. He submits that the petitioners are in custody for 63 days

in connection with the present case.

The learned Advocate for the State submits that the statements

recorded under Section 161 make out a prima case against the

present petitioners. She also refers to the statement of the minor

daughter of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

It appears from the statement of the minor daughter of the

victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC that the husband of the

victim was the main perpetrator of the crime and there was some

instigation done by the present petitioner no.2.

We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels

appearing for the parties and have perused the case diary.

Having considered the materials available in the case diary,

while we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no.1 we do not

think it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner no.2.

Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner no.1 shall be released

on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand

only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be

local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kalna on condition that he shall make himself available

to the investigating officer as and when required. He shall not
3

intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner

whatsoever and he shall appear before the trial Court on every date of

hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand

automatically cancelled without any further reference to this Court.

However, the prayer for bail of the petitioner no.2 is rejected.

The application for bail is, accordingly, 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.

(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)
4