Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail ... vs Smt. Manjuri Das & Ors on 3 October, 2013
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
03.10.13 Item No. 54 Court No.17 A.B. CRM No. 12245 of 2013 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.09.2013.
And In the matter of: Smt. Manjuri Das & Ors.
Petitioners
- versus -
The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta Mr. Navanil De For the Petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 36 of 2013 dated 22.01.2013 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.
We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State. We have seen the case diary.
The learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, has objected to the maintainability of the application for anticipatory bail in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The offence alleged against the Petitioners is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is as follows:
3(1) "Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes-
(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view;"
We have perused the F.I.R. and there is no allegation made out therein which establishes the ingredients of the aforesaid Section. It is now well settled that the bar of Section 18 of the Act cannot operate when the ingredients of Section 3 are not made out in the F.I.R. We have, therefore, considered the application on its merits.
The Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the aunt-in-law & uncle-in-law respectively of the victim and the other Petitioners are their children. There is no direct allegation made against the Petitioners and, do not reside in the matrimonial home of the victim.
WED Hence, in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Mukul Das, Milan Das and Sanjay Das alias Sanjay Kumar Das, shall report to the concerned Police Station once a week until further orders.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)