The Special Judge rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by Tajo Sk. & Ors. in a murder case involving torture and dowry demand, holding that the gravity of the offence and available evidence precluded bail.
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC rejected and application dismissed.
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.
C.R.M. (A) 428 of 2023
08.02.2023
Sl.1 Court No.29 (AD) (Rejected)
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No .1093 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And
In the matter of: Tajo Sk. & Ors. ….petitioners. Ms. Shabana Hasin …for the petitioners. Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu …for the State.
Report as called for by the order dated February 1, 2023 filed
in Court be taken on record.
The report states that prayer for addition of Section 498A of the Indian Penal code, 1860 was made and allowed on February 1, 2023.
The investigations are in progress.
The materials in the case diary suggest involvement of all the petitioners in the incident of torture, harassment and demand for dowry.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the husband is in custody. The police complaint was lodged after an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure. According to her, there was a delay at least three months from the date of the incident in the lodgment of the complaint. She contends that, the victim was alive at the hospital and did not implicate any of the petitioners. All medical expenses of the victim were born by the family members of the petitioners.
Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the victim was not in a position to speak.
As noted above, there are statements of neighbours
2
implicating the petitioners in the incident of harassment, torture and demand for dowry.
The police are proceeding, inter alia, under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Considering the involvement of the petitioners in the incident and the gravity of the offence, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
C.R.M. (A) 428 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of murder, torture, and dowry demand.
Whether there is sufficient material to suggest involvement of all petitioners in the incident.
Whether the gravity of the offence and经审理 evidence precludes the grant of bail.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Tajo Sk. & Ors.
State
Debangsu Basak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
