Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujoy Deb vs Unknown on 31 January, 2018
1 31.01.2018
Ct.28 RP 93 CRM 868 of 2018 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Santragachi P.S. Case No.95 of 2017 dated 04.12.2017 under Sections 376/354C/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In the matter of : Sujoy Deb .... Petitioner Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Sr. Adv.
..... For the Petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta, Adv.
..... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was an amorous relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and they happen to be colleagues in the same institution. As the relationship soured, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.
Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He further submits that the de facto complainant stated that she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.
2Having considered the materials in the case diary we find that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were colleagues and were known to each other. Bearing in mind the communications exchanged between themselves on the social networking site annexed to the petition, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts of the case and she may be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with further condition that he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders.
The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3