LAWS(CAL)-2004-6-38

RANI BALA DEY Vs. STATE OF W B

Decided On June 11, 2004
RANI BALA DEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows : This is an application for cancellation of the Bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas (North) on 16.1.2004 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5460 of 2003 in favour of the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) The opposite party No. 2 was arrayed in connection with Habra Police Station Case No. 22 dated 15.1.2000 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with in Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of an First Information Report lodged by the present petitioner containing allegation that her son Utpal asked for his meal from her on the night of 14.1.2000 at about 8/8-30 p.m. when a person called him as a result of which he went outside but did not return and on the next day she came to know that her son's deadbody, which was identified by her, was found with gun shot injuries. She alleged that the present Opposite Party No. 2 and his associates attempted to murder her son Utpal thrice and had told her that if he is ever murdered it will be in the hands of the Opposite Party No. 2. On the basis of the said F.I.R. the investigation of G.R. Case No. 80 of 2000 ended in a charge-sheet against three accused persons in connection with which cognizance was taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar by his order dated 27.12.2000 where the Opposite Party No. 2 was shown as absconder and warrant, proclamation and attachment was issued against him.

(3.) Subsequently, on 19.2.2001 tha Opposite Party No. 2 surrendered by petition and he was remanded to Jail custody. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge by his Order No. 2 dated 5.3.2001 granted bail to the Opposite Party No. 2. In the meanwhile the bail granted to the Opposite Party No. 2 was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge by his Order No. 14 dated 29.4.2003 in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 3826 of 2002 as it was found that he was continuously threatening the de facto-complainant.