07.04.2025 Court No. 4 (A.Bhar) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRM (DB) 58 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 And In the matter of: Pankaj Sarkar @ Kalu …..Petitioner Mr. Arunava Paul ……….for the petitioner Mr. A. S. Chakraborty, ld. APP Mr. Aniruddha Biswas ………………for the State Mr. Sudipto Kr. Majumdar Mr. Tridip Saha ……for the Defacto complainant. This is an application under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner Pankaj Sarkar who is an accused in Matigara Police Station Case No. 568 of 2020 dated 21/06/2020 under Sections 498A/302/34 IPC read with Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. The facts of the case in brief is that on 21/06/2020 at 2.45 A.M one Sri Basudev Mondal lodged an FIR against 1) Pankaj Sarkar, 2) Akhi Sarkar, 3) Rinku Chetri, 4) Choto Sarkar and 5) Anjali Sarkar to the effect that on 03.05.2011 his daughter Rupa Mondal was married to Pankaj Sarkar as per Hindu rituals after fulfilling their dowry demands. After marriage her daughter was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband and in laws and during the course she gave birth to two kids. On 14-04- 2 2020 there was problem between Rupa Sarkar and her husband and in laws which was amicably settled in presence of local Panchayat. On 20-06-2020 at around 21.45 hrs he received verbal information from the neighbour of accused persons that her daughter has been killed by Pankaj Sarkar @ Kalu. Though the victim was shifted to North Bengal Medical College and hospital by the local people but attending doctor declared her dead. On this complaint Matigara P.S. Case No. 568/2020 dated 21-06-2020 was instituted, investigation was taken up charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons including the petitioner under Section 498A/302/34 IPC read with Section ¾. Dowry prohibition Act. The case is already committed to the Court of Session and trial has started. During pendency of trial supplementary charge-sheet is also submitted by the Investigating Authority. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner, Learned Advocate for opposite party State of West Bengal and Learned Advocate for the defacto complainant. Perused the materials in the case diary. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 4 years 6 months and till date only 4 witnesses are examined and the case involves examination of 30 witnesses Learned Advocate further submits that as there is no change to conclude the trial within a short period considering the period of detention of the petitioner his prayer for bail be allowed. Learned Advocates also submits that other co-accused persons are on bail and there is no change of the petitioner to abscond if the petitioner is released on bail. 3 Learned Advocate for the opposite party state of West Bengal submits that nature of allegation against the petitioner is serious and there are sufficient materials to show the involvement of the petitioner. Learned Advocate further draws attention to the post mortem report and submits that the said report along with the recovery of the offending weapon on the statement of the petitioner will go to show the involvement of the petitioner thus bail prayer should be refused. Learned Advocate for the defacto complainant submits that there eleven injuries inflicted on the victim thus the allegations are serious and prayer for bail should be refused. It is also submitted that in case of offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 302 IPC once trial has commenced Court should be slow in granting bail. Upon perusal of the materials in the case diary it appears that there was a quarrel between the victim and the petitioner and the alleged incident is a result of the quarrel. Thus it cannot be inferred that it was a pre-planned murder. However in order to ascertain whether there was any grave and sudden provocation there must be full fledged trial. It also appears that A. Cotton wood with control. B. Cement clippings swab in mesh cloth with control. C. Mosquito net cutting with control, D. Bathi daw, E. Swab in mesh cloth with control, E, Nighty cutting with no control, F, Panty cuttings with no control, G. Mesh cloth soaked in dark brown liquid with control, were collected and these articles were sent for determination of origin and group of blood. After analysis, report was submitted by Asst Serologist and chemical Examiner the Govt. of India that Item E/Serial 28 (Nighty cuttings) is stained with 4 human blood. With regard other articles namely A. (Cotton wool) B. (cement Chippings swab in mesh cloth). C. Mosquito net cuttings, D. Bathi dau in mesh cloth. E. panty cuttings and F. Mesh cloth soaked in dark brown liquid it was stated that the blood stains are disintegrated and their origin cannot be determined. Further finger print and palm point of petitioner taken in presence of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class 3rd Court Siliguri on 06-07-2020 for comparison with chance prints marked ‘A’, B and C could not be done and it was observed in the report that prints were dark, hazy blurred and indistinct and lack in sufficient number of convincing ridge characteristics, hence question of comparison with the specimen ten digit finger prints of accused Pankaj Sarkar does not arise. Although different reports sought for could not be obtained to corroborate the case of the prosecution case but non-production of the said reports cannot negate the prosecution case as there are other evidences on record which can be adduced by the prosecution. Upon hearing the Learned Advocates and upon perusal of the materials in the case diary it would not be reasonable to make further observation about the merits of the case but it has to be decided as to whether the petitioner should be granted bail. It has been held in different, Judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts that while considering the prayer for bail the factors to be considered are i) Nature of the offence, ii) evidences appearing on record, iii) The severity of the punishment in the event the accused is convicted, iv) 5 The chance of repeating the offence if on bail, v) The chance of abscondence and tampering of evidence. The offence for which the accused is being tried is under Section 498A/302 IPC and the offence under Section 302 IPC is a heinous offence, but the fact the petitioner/accused person has already undergone detention for a period of 4 years 9 months and the last witness examined as P.W-4 was about 9 months ago, and the case involves examination of 30 witnesses it is also to be considered as to whether the petitioner should be granted bail on account of delay in trial. In the case of Arvind Kejriwal VS Central Bureau of investigation reported in 2024 SCC Online S.C. 2550 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “38. The evolution of bail jurisprudence in India underscores that the ‘issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process’. The principle has further been expanded to establish that the prolonged incarceration of an accused person, pending trial, amounts to an unjust deprivation of personal liberty. This Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb has expanded this principle even in a case under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter ‘UAPA’) notwithstanding the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D (5) of that Act, laying down that the legislative policy against the grant of bail will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time. The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty’ with a 6 flexible approach towards an undertrial, save and except when the release of such person is likely to shatter societal aspirations, derail the trial or deface the very criminal justice system which is integral to rule of law.” 4. In the case of Mohd Tahir Hussain VS State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2025 SCC Online S.C. 135 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “27. I have examined the allegations and the evidence against the Petitioner. No doubt, they are grave and reprehensible but as of this moment they are exactly that – allegations. It is settled law that magnitude and gravity of the 37 offence alleged are not grounds, in and by themselves, to deny bail [Para 18 12 of K ANajeeb (supra) and Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574], moreso when trial is prolonged. The Petitioner’s rights under 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be lost sight of. As on date, no court of law has convicted the petitioner. The following passage from Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (supra) is attracted squarely: ‘18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.’” In the case of State of Kerala V Raneef reported in 2011(1) SCC-P784 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: ‘In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if 7 the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.’ Thus upon considering the judicial pronouncements it will appear that even in case of heinous offences an accused can be released on bail if there is delay in trial. Even if the Court before which trial is pending is of the view that trial cannot be completed within a short period and considering the nature of offence and the evidences appearing it would not be reasonable to release the accused on bail the court may grant interim bail for a short period. The interim bail may be granted during trial more than once after certain period if there is inordinate delay in completion of trial. An accused may be convicted or acquitted on the completion of trial and in the event of being convicted he must have the mental strength to undergo reformation process as the object of punishment is to reform a guilty person. Similarly an accused after being acquitted should also have mental strength and motivation to resume normal life. Incarceration for a long period makes a person depressed and frustrated and may not help him to undergo 8 reformation process in case of conviction or resume normal life after acquittal. It is only when a person’s detention is relaxed for some period and he is allowed to meet his family or near relations who can motivate him or visit any religious institution or undergo counseling process he can get strength to face trial or undergo reformation process or resume normal life as the case may be. Grating interim bail with stringent condition will prevent the accused from committing offence, during his release and reasonable apprehension of repeating offence may not be there. In the instant case although the accused is being tried for a heinous offence but considering his period of detention for 4 years 9 months and the fact that only 4 witnesses have been examined and the case involves examination of 30 witnesses in the interest of justice the petitioner should be granted interim-bail for 8 weeks. Hence the petitioner is released on interim bail for 8 weeks with 2 sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each one of which must be local subject to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court. The petitioner upon being released must meet Officer in charge of the concerned police station twice a week and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court and shall not meet the persons acquainted with the facts of the case or do anything prejudicial to trial. In the event date of trial is fixed within 8 weeks the petitioner shall attend on those dates. On completion of 8 weeks the petitioner shall surrender before the trial court. The Learned Trial Court in the event is of the view that trial cannot be completed within short period may extend the period for interim bail or may defer the same for completion of evidence of some witnesses. 9 All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)