The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of dowry harassment and culpable homicide. The Court denied bail as custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.
Application for anticipatory bail for Petitioners No. 1 and 3 rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
03.08.2021
Court No.28 Item No.353 (REJECTED)
Ab/Saswata
(Via Video Conference)
CRM 1366 of 2021
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.02.2021 in connection with Manikchak Police Station case No. 290 of 2020 dated 03.11.2020, under Sections 498(A)/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (G.R.Case no. 4850 of 2020); And
In the matter of : Sk. Raju & Ors.
…Petitioners
Mr. A. Karmakar Mr. Arup Kr. Bhowmick
…For the Petitioners
Mr. Tanmoy Kr. Ghosh Mr. Nirupam Dhali
… For the State
The Advocate-on-record of the petitioners undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within four weeks from date. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Manikchak Police Station case No. 290 of 2020 under Sections 498(A)/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners have filed the instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At the very outset, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 has been arrested in the meantime and, therefore, he is not pressing this application for the said petitioner.
He moves the application for petitioner nos. 1 and 3.
The petitioner no.1 is the husband and the petitioner no.3 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. It is submitted that there was a
2
matrimonial discord between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant and the instant case has been initiated out of grudge and enmity having no nexus to the truth.
The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the victim lady has vividly narrated the incident happened on the fateful day and was taken to the hospital by her father after she was thrown out of the house and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is necessary.
After perusing the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the injury report, we do not think that it is a fit case where the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 should get privilege of being arrested as their custodial interrogation is necessary.
Hence the prayer for anticipatory bail, so far as the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is concerned, is rejected.
(Harish Tandon, J)
(Bibek Chaudhuri,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present case qualifies as a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sk. Raju & Ors.
State
Harish Tandon
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
