Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
4.2010 Under Sections 366/366A Of The ... vs In Re: Nepal Sarkar & Ors on 8 June, 2010
1 8.06.10
m CRM No. 7328 of 2010 In re: An application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.05.10 in connection with Alipurduar.P.S. Case No. 95/2010 dated 01.04.2010 under sections 366/366A of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In Re: Nepal Sarkar & Ors Petitioners
Mr. Joymalya Bagchi
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee For the Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Mahata For the State
We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioners and for the State. We have perused the materials available before us and we are of the considered view that this is an appropriate case for admitting the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, namely, Nepal Sarkar, Malati Sakar, Ananta Sarkar and Goutam Sarkar, with an order under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 would be admitted on bail upon furnishing sufficient sureties on the following conditions that:
(i) The Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required ;
(ii) no direct or indirect threat or any inducement would be made to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.1 2
This order would remain valid for four weeks.
The Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 must submit to the jurisdiction of the Regular Court within such time and thereupon the latter shall consider the prayer for bail of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the basis of the materials available against them as on that date and take an independent decision without being guided by the disposal of this application.
The Petitioner No.4, Supriya Sarkar @ Suprita Sarkar, being below 17 years of age, falls within the definition of section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the said Act' for short) and is a juvenile in conflict with law under section 2(1) of the said Act. In view of the enabling provision of section 10 read with section 12 of the said Act, she will clearly stand governed by the same.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the Petitioner No.4 becoming infuctuous is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The application is, thus, disposed of.
(Amit Talukdar, J) (Raghunath Ray, J) 2