Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Section 9(B)(Ii) Of The I.E. Act vs In Re : Ismaile Mallick & Ors on 14 June, 2018
1 14.06.2018
tkm/ct 28 C.R.M. 3796 of 2018 sl no. 105
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.6.2018 in connection with Arambag P.S case no. 136 of 2018 dated 3.3.2018 under sections 448/341/326/307/302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 9(b)(ii) of the I.E. Act And In Re : Ismaile Mallick & Ors. ...... petitioners Mr. Prantick Ghosh Mr. S. Sarkar ...... for the petitioners Mr. S. Bapuli Mr. Arani Bhattacharya ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case belatedly.
Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail. We have considered materials on record. We find from the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioners were present at the time of assault of the victim resulting in his death and in view of the gravity of the offence and the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2