Shri. Peter Minj v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(DB)/1/2025 Re:

An application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure code, 1973 in connection with FIR No.75 of 2023 dated 24.06.2023, PS Bambooflat under section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

And In the matter of: Peter Minj ... Petitioner Mr. S. Sasi Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State January 20, 2025 [SR] Item no. 1 1.

The petitioner before us is accused of having murdered his wife while she was sleeping. It is alleged that he has suffocated her with a pillow.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife died due to breathing problem and initially a UD case was lodged at the instance of the present petitioner. Subsequently, on alleged confession of the present petitioner, in police custody, which has no sanctity in the eyes of law, he has been made an accused. 3.

It is submitted that he is in custody since 26.05.2023 and till date, four prosecution witnesses, including the two important and relevant witnesses namely Simon Lakra and Benadic Lakra brothers of the victim who were sleeping in the room where the offence was committed, remain to be examined.

4.

The petitioner is stated to be a man of clean antecedent and a government servant; and the learned counsel prays that the bail may be granted on any terms and conditions as this Court may deems fit.

5.

Learned Pubic Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail. Referring to the material including the post mortem report, by submitting the some injuries have been found and as such unnatural death is obvious. The petitioner's confession also provides the motive for commission of the offence. The nature of offence being heinous this Court may not accede to the petitioner's prayer for bail at this juncture.

6.

On consideration of the rival submissions, having regard to the nature of allegation, material collected in the course of investigation as also the fact that now only four witnesses remain to be examined, we are not inclined, at the present, to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail. 7.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, after examination of the ten (10) witnesses, efforts were made to locate these two prime witnesses namely Simon Lakra and Banadic Lakra, whose whereabouts have now been ascertained. The prosecution will take all sincere efforts to ensure that the remaining 4 witnesses including these two persons are examined at the earliest and most probably within a month from date.

8.

In view of such submission advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, we observe that if the trial is not concluded within three months from date. The petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail.

9.

The CRM(DB)/1/2025 stands dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Supratim Bhattacharya, J. )