Abhijit Biswas vs Unknown on 24 August, 2015

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Abhijit Biswas vs Unknown on 24 August, 2015

Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy

pk CRM No. 7386 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.08.15 in connection with Berhampore P.S. Case No. 402/15 dated 21/7/15 under Sections 406/407/409/420/465/466/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                        And
         In the matter of:- Abhijit Biswas
                                                  Petitioner

         Ms. Sreyashee Biswas                          for the petitioner

         Mr. Madhusudhan Sur                           for the State


             The      petitioner,     apprehending            arrest       in     connection        with

         Berhampore    P.S.   Case    No.       402/15       dated     2lst       July    2015     under

Sections 406/407/409/420/465/466/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner being a Revenue Officer, while he was posted at BL&LRO, Berhampore, indulged in corrupt practice in disposing of mutation cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner simply did his official duty and Sections 406/407/409/420/465/466/467/468 are not attracted against the present petitioner. He is a Government Officer and has no chance to flee course of justice and he should be granted anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner used same and identical number in disposing of several mutation cases.

To our query, however, the learned counsel for the State, in his usual fairness, submits that the informant, being the Sub- Divisional Land & Land Reforms Officer, Berhampore Sadar, Murshidabad, did not receive any sort of complaint against the present petitioner from the members of the public. He also concedes that the case rests on documentary evidence, which are in the custody of the investigating agency and the present petitioner is now posted at a different place.

Having regard to above and considering the materials collected during investigation and since the petitioner happens to be a Government Officer and when no case is made out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and he has a deep root in the society and has no chance of absconding, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Berhampore Sadar except either for the purpose of court's proceedings or to meet the investigating officer of the case once in every week for a period of one month.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- on condition that after release the petitioner shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.

This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)