Sufia Mondal@ Supriya Mondal And Others v. State Of West Bengal

28.10.2021 Serial no. 170 Dd/Srimanta (Through Video Conference) CRM 6857 of 2021 In re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 464 of 2020 dated 08.07.2020 under Sections 498A/406/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. -AndIn the matter of : Sufia Mondal @ Supiya Mondal & Ors. ... Petitioners Mr. Koustav Bagchi, Mr. Amanul Islam, Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, Advocates ... ... For the Petitioners Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, Ms. Manasi Roy, Advocates ... ...For the State The petitioners submit that they are in-laws of one Mahima Mondal. The charges are, inter alia, under Sections 498A, 307, 406, 326 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The husband died on a road accident. The allegations are that the in-laws since after the death of the husband are torching the lady.

The learned State counsel has produced the Case Diary, which includes the injury report showing alleged administration of some poison.

Considering the materials placed before us and upon hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to all the three petitioners. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be

local, 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. The petitioners shall cooperate and attend every date of investigation as and when they will be called upon. In the event any of the petitioners wishes to go out of the jurisdiction of the local police station they shall obtain permission from the Officerin-Charge of the concerned police station. CRM 6857 of 2021 is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in terms of the above.

After passing the order, submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners that in place of local surety one surety should be registered surety. Accordingly, such prayer is allowed.

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.)