Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sections 448/323/324/354/506/34 Of ... vs In Re : Nairul Sk. & Ors on 27 June, 2019
1
27.06.2019
78
sdas
Allowed
C.R.M. 5322 of 2019
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.06.2019 in connection with
Mayureswar Police Station Case No. 75 of 2019 dated 16.05.2019 under
Sections 448/323/324/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In Re : Nairul Sk. & Ors. ...... petitioners
Ms. Minoti Gomes
.....for the petitioners
Mr. Rana Mukherjee,
Ms. Sutapa Banerjee
....for the State
Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind
the nature of allegations and the fact that there are significant
differences between the allegations in the F.I.R. and her statement under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the opinion
that petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall
be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with
two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further
conditions that the petitioners no. 1 to 4 shall meet the investigating
officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the
2
court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from
date.
This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.
(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3
C.R.M. 11960 of 2017
In Re:- An application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed on 28.11.2017 in connection with
Jagatballavpur Police Station Case No. 263 of 2017 dated
01.11.2017under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re : Aslam Ali Sk. @ Aslam Sk. ...... petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ms. Amrita Chel .....for the petitioner Mr. N. P. Agarwala ....for the State Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
We have considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the opinion although custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts of the case but movement of the petitioner requires to be restricted to instill confidence in the mind of the victim. 4