Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Dr.) Kausik Kundu @ Kaushik Kundu & vs Unknown on 30 January, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
30.01.2024 ML-506 Court No.29 C.R.M. (A) 5224 of 2023 (AD) (Rejected) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Maniktala Police Station Case No.259 of 2023 dated 29.09.2023 under Sections 498A/406/506/341/323/354/354C/354D/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (G.R. Case No.2346 of 2023).
And In the matter of: (Dr.) Kausik Kundu @ Kaushik Kundu & Ors.
....petitioners.
Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee Mr. Shounak Mondal Mr. Suman Majumder ... for the petitioners.
Mr. Sonali Das Mr. Subrata Roy ...for the State.
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mrs. Chama Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandipan Ganguly,Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Partha Pratim Bhattacharyya Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Mr. Debangan Bhattacharya Mr. Kaushik Choudhury Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Tirthankar Dhali Ms. Sananda Bhattacharya Ms. Rupsa Sreemani Ms. Busra Khatun Ms. Paolaumi Bhowmick Ms. Jagriti Bhattacharyya Mr. Inzamam ul Haque ... for the de facto complainant. Petitioners pray for anticipatory bail. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were falsely implicated and he refers 2 to the profession of the de facto complainant. He submits that there is a delay in the lodgment of the First Information Report.
State and the de facto complainant are represented. Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also a statement of a doctor treating her.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the de facto complainant was forced to lodge the police compliant within three months fifteen days of marriage.
We perused the materials in the case diary. The de facto complainant recorded an elaborate statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where she ascribes specific roles to each of the petitioners in the incidents.
There is an allegation of abortion. Abortion allegation stands corroborated by the medical evidence.
There are allegations of demand for dowry and of circulation of obscene photographs.
Materials in the case diary suggest requirement of investigations so far as the role of the petitioners are concerned.
Enlarging any of the petitioners on anticipatory bail on the basis of the materials in the case diary presently available will be inimical to the investigation.
Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
3C.R.M. (A) 5224 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)