Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dowry Prohibition Act vs In Re: Shyamaprasad Neogi on 3 February, 2020
1 03.02.202058
sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 1085 of 2020 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.01.2020 in connection with Jhargram All Women Police Station Case No. 4 of 2020 dated 05.01.2020 under Sections 498A/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
And In Re: Shyamaprasad Neogi ......... petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra ...for the petitioner Mr. Saryati Datta .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to matrimonial dispute.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations and as no external injury is noted in the medical papers and seizure of wearing apparel of the victim was made after two days of the incident, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and 2 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 he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the investigating officer and hands over his passport, if any, within a fortnight from date. In the event he does not have a passport, he shall personally appear before the investigating officer and furnish an affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.
This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)