Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Anupam Santra & Nirupam Santra vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 May, 2014

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

In The High Court At Calcutta 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.5654 of 2014 Anupam Santra & Nirupam Santra v.
                                 The State of West Bengal

Mr. Sabir Ahmed                                               ... for the petitioners.

Mr. Rudradipto Nandi                                   ... for the State.

Heard on: May 6, 2014.

Order on: May 6, 2014.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The two petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Tamluk P.S. Case No.563 of 2013 dated December 19, 2013 under ss.420/406/467/468/120B/34 IPC are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The petitioners are a director and an instructor of one Griffins Airlines Training School that imparts training for airlines ground staff job. The de facto complainant has alleged that though the institute promised him a job after completion of the training course, the job was not provided nor was the money paid by him refunded. The dispute is civil in nature. Hence the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and has submitted that according to the agreement between the institute authorities and the de facto complainant, the institute liable to provide job after completion of training course or to refund the money in case of its failure to provide the job, did not refund the money, though it failed to provide job.
The case diary materials and the facts and circumstances of the case, in our prima facie opinion, justify the petitioners' argument that the dispute is 2 essentially civil in nature. We think it will be appropriate to grant the petitioners anticipatory bail.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that in the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with the case, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Certified xerox.



                                                    (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)


S.R.                                                   (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)