IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.9292 of 2011
BALARAM PODDAR SON OF LATE SATISH CHANDRA PODDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
with
Cr.Misc. No.8746 of 2011
CHIRANJIB PODDAR SON OF BALRAM PODDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2 18.04.2011 Heard learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners
and the complainant.
The petitioner being the father-in-law is
apprehending his arrest in a complaint case in which
cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and
304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas, other petitioner
being the husband, languishing in custody since
05.12.2010, is seeking regular bail.
The regular bail application of the husband
has been placed before this Court in pursuance to the
order dated 25.03.2011.
The marriage was performed on 16.01.2001
at Calcutta whereas, the victim died on 03.08.2001 at
Patna. On 03.08.2001 itself, U.D. case was registered at
the behest of the husband. Subsequently, the police
-2-
found it a case of suicide and did not register a formal
F.I.R. It appears that subsequently, the father of the
victim filed a complaint at Calcutta, which was
subsequently, registered as police case on 15.10.2001
as Bidhannagar (North) P.S. Case No. 155 of 2001 in
which the final form was submitted as mistake of law.
It appears that the Calcutta police found that it has no
jurisdiction to investigate the case. Hence, the
S.D.J.M., Barrackpur discharged the accused persons
vide order dated 26.03.2003 as contained in Annexure-
4.
It is submitted by learned Sr. counsel for the
petitioner that the police found the case of suicide,
hence, the formal F.I.R. was not registered and the
present complaint has been filed after three months of
the occurrence when the dead body, after postmortem,
was received by the complainant himself on 04.08.2001
when the complainant took it to Calcutta. It is
submitted that when the accusation made by the
complainant, was found not true at Calcutta then the
present case was lodged.
-3-
It is further submitted that only husband and
wife were present when the occurrence took place as
father-in-law was not present which has not been
controverted by learned Sr. counsel for the
complainant.
Learned Sr. counsel for the complainant
submits that in Calcutta case, the anticipatory bail
application of the father-in-law and mother-in-law was
rejected.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that the same order reflects that the husband and
brother of the husband were granted anticipatory bail.
Moreover, the Calcutta case was ended into discharge
by order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Barrackpur, West
Bengal.
The further contention of the learned Sr.
counsel for the complainant is that the accused persons
evaded to appear since last several years on one pretext
or the other and did not allow the trial to commence..
Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner
submits that the matter with regard to the quashing of
-4-
the order of cognizance as well as applications under
Section 205 Cr.P.C. were pending, as a result of which,
they could not appear and non-bailable warrant has
been issued for the first time on 07.09.2010.
The further contention of learned Sr. counsel
for the complainant is that in spite of direction of the
S.P., the U.D. case was not converted into regular
F.I.R., the submission has no meaning since the
outcome of U.D. Case has not been challenged by the
complainant.
Considering lodging of the complaint after
three months of the occurrence, the fact that the father-
in-law was not present in Patna when the occurrence
took place, the suicidal note of the victim, as contained
in Annexure- 3, reflects that the victim did not allege
anything against the accused persons rather has taken
responsibilities of committing suicide on her own, and
the husband was granted anticipatory bail by Calcutta
court let the petitioner namely Balaram Poddar
(father-in-law), be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his arrest or surrender
-5-
before the learned Court below within a period of 12
weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with
Complaint Case No. 2105C/2001, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Let the petitioner namely, Chiranjib Poddar
(husband) be released on regular bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned S.D.J.M., Patna in connection with Complaint
Case No. 2105C/01.
The learned court below will be at liberty to
cancel the bail of the petitioners positively, if the
petitioners fail to appear on three consecutive occasions
during the trial.
It is expected from the learned court below to
make the commitment of the case within a period of
one month, when the trial court will expedite the trial.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Amrendra/-
-6-