Subrata Ghosh @ Kartick vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 1766 Cal

09.03.2021 Mithun Sl. No.08 D/L.

Ct.No.30.

IA No:CRAN/2/2020 (Old No:CRAN/1290/2020) in CRA/38/ 2019

In re: An application under Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An order & judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda, convicting the appellant under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the matter of : Subrata Ghosh @ Kartick.

...the appellant.

Mr.Swapan Kumar Mallick, Adv., Kazi M. Rahaman, Adv.

... for the appellant.

Mr.Binay Panda, Adv.

Ms.Puspita Saha, Adv.

...for the State.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased victim

who was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for 2 years for committing offence under

Section 498A IPC and 6 years for committing offence

under Section 306 IPC in S.T.No.20 of 2016 (S.C.No.164

of 2016) passed by the learned Additional District &

Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

appellant/petitioner that co-appellants were released on

bail vide order dated 10th April, 2019. The petitioner has

renewed the prayer for bail on the ground that he has

already suffered half of the sentence. The petitioner was

all along on bail during trial of the case and he never

misused any of the conditions. Since the petitioner has

been sentenced to suffer term imprisonment, he should be

released on bail.

Learned P.P.-in-Charge has raised objection against

the prayer for bail on the ground that there was no change

of circumstances from the date when the bail was refused

till date.

Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties

and in view of the fact that the lower court record has not

received as yet and there is no early chance for hearing of

the appeal, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

The petitioner may find bail of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each to the

satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at

Malda with further conditions that if on bail, he must visit

the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station

once in a month and shall file an affidavit stating his

residential address and mobile phone number, if any, by

swearing an affidavit on the first date of his visit to the

Officer-in-Charge of the police station. If the petitioner

violates any of the above conditions, the order of bail shall

be cancelled without further reference to this Bench.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)