Chandana Mondal v. State Of West Bengal

05.07.2022 Sl. No.24 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (DB) 2104 of 2022 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.06.2022 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 18 of 2020 dated 12.01.2020 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re: Chandana Mondal ... ... Petitioner Mr. Parthapratim Das ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sourav Mukherjee ... ... for the de-facto complainant Mr. A. A. Siddiqui .. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu Ms. Amrin Khatoon ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is in custody for about 904 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits petitioner is the wife of the deceased. She was alone in the house with the deceased and murdered him. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail.

We have considered the materials on record. There are incriminating materials connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The application for bail is thus rejected.

However, in view of the protracted period of detention suffered by the petitioner, we request the trial court to consider the issue of

framing of charge on the date fixed and if the court is unable to do so, positively within one month thereof and thereafter take the proceeding to its logical conclusion without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)