MOUMITA MONDAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 pursuant to order dated 04-10-2016.

(2.) Counsel for the defacto complainant applicant submits that the premise, on which the order dated 04-10-2016 was passed, is in total mis-appreciation of the real facts and is based on a wrong premise. It was submitted by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 before the Court below that the victim and the defacto complainant had divorced in 2002 and being a divorced wife, she would have no knowledge of abetment of the offence. The aforesaid is totally incorrect, as the marriage of the defacto complainant with the victim was a second marriage. Her earlier marriage with one Tapan Kumar Roy had been dissolved by decree dated 27th Aug., 2002 in MAT Suit No.84 of 2001. It is only after the divorce that she married the deceased. Therefore, she was very much a part of the family of the deceased and would have knowledge of the actions or inaction of the opposite party nos.2 and 3. The father of the victim has also addressed the defacto complainant as the elder daughter-in-law in his complaint dated 04-01-2017 which has been enclosed with the affidavit filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the order dated 04-10-2016 has proceeded on a wrong basis and the bail granted pursuant thereto be cancelled.