Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sriya Chakraborty & Anr vs Unknown on 1 March, 2022
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
CRM 6144 of 2021
With
01.03.2022
Sl. 01 IA No. CRAN 2 of 2022 Court No.29 With suvayan IA No. CRAN 3 of 2022 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kalighat P.S. FIR No. 83 dated 01/08/2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
And In the matter of: Sriya Chakraborty & Anr..
....petitioners.
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh Mr. Aranya Mullick Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini ... for the petitioners.
Ms. Sayanti Santra ...for the State.
Re: CRAN 2 of 2022 With CRAN 3 of 2022 The two applications are taken into consideration. The two applications are at the behest of two foreign nationals. They claim themselves as Australian citizens. They are the petitioners in CRM 6144 of 2021. CRM 6144 of 2021 is an application seeking anticipatory bail by the two petitioners in respect of Kalighat Police Station FIR No.83 of 2021 dated August 1, 2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Initially, when the application for anticipatory bail was moved by an order dated September 21, 2021 interim protection was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners were allowed to participate in the investigation through video conference. Such order was passed in view of the ongoing pandemic and in view of the helplessness expressed by the petitioners in attending the 2 Investigating Officer in India. The next order in CRM 6144 of 2021 is November 9, 2021. Interim protection granted on September 21, 2021 was directed to continue till January 31, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
The application for anticipatory bail was taken up for consideration on February 9, 2022. In fact, it was taken up on a previous date when request was made by the Court to the learned Advocate representing the petitioners to take instructions and inform the Court as to the date when the petitioners will be available in India to participate in the investigation.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners took time and the matter was adjourned.
On February 9, 2022 learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted on instructions that the second petitioner will present himself before the Investigating Officer on February 24, 2022.
In view of such statement being made in Court, the application for interim bail was directed to be listed on February 28, 2022 for further consideration. The interim protection was directed to continue till March 7, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
The petitioners did not report before the Investigating Officer on February 28, 2022 as they assumed the Court in February 9, 2022. None of the petitioners are in India. The petitioner No.2 is the husband of the de facto complainant. Despite the petitioners including the petitioner No.2 persuading the Court through their Advocate on February 9, 2022 to extend the interim protection on their specific stand that the second 3 petitioner will present himself before the Investigating Officer on February 24, 2022, the petitioners did not comply with the same.
The two applications are essentially for modification of the order dated February 9, 2022. The two applications are now being made by different sets of lawyers then the advocates filing the application for anticipatory bail and obtaining the orders of interim protection from September 21, 2022.
The two applications were taken up for consideration yesterday, when the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners was requested to inform the Court as to the date when which the petitioners will be able to participate in the investigations in India.
Today, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2 purchased an air ticket to arrive in India on April 6, 2022.
The conduct of the petitioners does not inspire any confidence. Since September 21, 2021 when the application for anticipatory bail was initially taken up for consideration, the petitioners were seeking two months' time to be in India. Two months from September 21, 2021 expired longtime ago. They are yet to be in India. The ongoing pandemic is no longer an excuse for any of the petitioners to participate in the investigations. Flight restrictions are over and no longer in place. There is no earthly reason preventing any of the petitioners to be in India apart from their anxiety to dodge the investigations.
The applications for modification contains bald allegations with regard to the steps allegedly taken to comply with the order 4 dated February 9, 2022 which records their statements that they will be in India on February 24, 2022. It is bereft of any document evidencing the intention of any of the petitioners to comply with the order dated February 9, 2022 and be in India in the date fixed at their instance. In fact the petitioners took no steps to comply with their assurance given to Court to be in India on the date chosen by them. In Court, an unsigned copy of a letter claimed to be issued by the petitioner No.2 to his employer seeking leave was handed over in Court. The letter is dated March 1, 2022. Such letter was issued after the expiry of the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner No.2. Such conduct also establishes the efforts of the petitioners to not only flout the orders of Court deliberately but to mislead the Court in every manner possible. This conduct of the petitioners is deprecated. This conduct of the petitioners should be visited with consequences.
The entirety of the 'Streedhan' articles are yet to be recovered. The Court is informed by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, on instructions by the father of both the petitioners who is present in Court, that they do not have any assets in India.
The Court is also informed that there are two other co- accuseds apart from two petitioners in the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. Both of them are on bail.
Since the entirety of 'Streedhan' articles are yet to be recovered and since none of the petitioners have any assets in India, it would be appropriate that a rule be issued to the two other co-accuseds who were enlarged on bail to show-cause as to 5 why the order granting bail to them should not be cancelled.
Since the entirety of the 'Streedhan' articles are yet to be recovered and since there are allegations of the accuseds benefiting financially at the instance of the de facto complainant and considering the contents in the First Information Report lodged by the de facto complainant it would be appropriate to restrain the two other co-accuseds who claim to have assets in India from dealing with or disposing of or in any manner creating third party interest in respect of their attests in India. This order of restraint will include banking operation of their bank account also.
In such circumstances, we find no merit in the two applications seeking modification of the order dated February 9, 2022.
The Investigating Officer is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of both the petitioners in India. All interim protections granted to the petitioners stands vacated.
List the CRM 6144 of 2021 for the purpose of consideration of the Rule issued to the two other co-accuseds on March 14, 2022. The department will communicate this order to the two other co-accuseds. The police will also communicate this order to the two other co-accuseds.
Accordingly, CRAN 2 of 2022 and CRAN 3 of 2022 are disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) 6