Partly allowed

Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal and Others v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC15 Nov 2021CRM/7205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a dowry death case involving Sections 498A, 304(B) and 34 IPC, the High Court declined bail to the mother-in-law due to prima facie evidence of her involvement in torture but granted it to the husband, sister-in-law, and her husband.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner no.1 (husband), petitioner no.3 (sister-in-law's husband), and petitioner no.4 (sister-in-law) upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties; bail d

Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal and Others Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

15.11.2021 . Item No. 112

¶2

¶3

(Allowed) C.R.M. 7205 of 2021 (via video conference)

¶4

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.11.2021 in connection with Habibpur Police Station Case No. 335 of 2021 dated 25.10.2021 under Sections 498A/304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of: Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal & Ors.

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Ms. Jeenia Rudra, Ms. Sahili Dey. …For the petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, Ms. Rita Datta. ....For the State

¶9

Mr. Dipayan Kundu, Mr. Avinaba Patra.

¶10

..For the de facto complainant.

¶11

The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the victim housewife, while the petitioner no.2 is her mother-in-law. The petitioner no.4 is the married sister-in-law and the petitioner no.3 is her husband.

¶12

It is contended that petitioner no.1 used to ordinarily reside in a different city in connection with his employment and was not present in or around the date of incident. It is further contended that the petitioner no.4 being the married sister-in-law, ordinarily used to reside at her matrimonial home with her husband i.e. the petitioner no.3 herein and they did not play any role in the matrimonial life of the victim housewife. It is also contended that they have been falsely roped in this case out of grudge.

¶13

Learned Lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioners had

¶14

¶15

tortured the housewife and compelled her to commit suicide within 1½ years of marriage.

¶16

Learned Lawyer for the de facto complainant submits that the petitioners had murdered the victim housewife and tried to pass off the incident as a suicide.

¶17

We have considered the materials on record. We note neither the petitioner no.1, i.e. the husband, nor the petitioner nos.4 and 3 i.e. married sister-in-law and her husband were present at the matrimonial home on the date of the incident.

¶18

No doubt there are certain statements that they also used to torture the victim housewife, however, there is no material to show that soon before the incident they had played any role in the torture, which resulted in the unnatural death. Post mortem report shows that the victim housewife had died due to hanging.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that there are prima facie materials showing that the petitioner no.2, mother-in-law, Sumitra Mondal, had tortured the victim housewife soon before her unnatural death. Hence, we are not inclined in granted anticipatory bail to her.

¶20

However, in view of the extent of complicity of the petitioner no.1, husband, Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal, and the married sister-in-law, Kanika Mondal Biswas the petitioner no.4 and her husband, Naresh Biswas, the petitioner no.3 in the alleged crime, we are inclined in granting anticipatory bail to them.

¶21

¶22

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4, namely, Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal, Naresh Biswas and Kanika Mondal Biswas shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- each, 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.

¶23

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal and Others v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrittan Mondal @ Mritunjoy Mondal and Others v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreelekha Sarda Vs Sushil Kr Tapuriah & Ors.

Hetia Anchalik Haspataler Sangathan Samit. Rep by S K Nandi Vs the Officer in Charge& Ors.

Daulat Ali Purkait & Ors. Vs Mahabbat Ali Beg & Ors.

Choton @ Ashadul Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Balaram Routh Vs State of West Bengal

Nijam Sekh Vs State of West Bengal