Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajibar Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 June, 2014
Author: Indrajit Chatterjee
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Indrajit Chatterjee
1 In the High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side. Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.5926 of 2014 Ajibar Mondal & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal Ms. Minoti Gomes ... for the petitioners.
Ms. Puspita Saha ... for the State.
Heard on :- June 2,2014.
Order on :- June 2, 2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The six petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Haringhata P.S.Case No.90 of 2013 dated April 6,2013 under ss.448/323/325/354/506/379 IPC are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The first petitioner instituted a case on April 3,2013 against several persons including the de facto complainant's husband. The accusation was that the accused in that case entered the first petitioner's house, attacked his people and severely injured his brother. As a counter-blast, the wife of an accused in that case instituted the case in which the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail. The case is a false one.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and referred to the materials therein including the injury report.2
The injury report reveals injury sustained by the first accused in the case instituted by the first petitioner. The case in which the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail was registered on April 6,2013, although it was stated that the incident had happened on April 3,2013.
There is no material which justify the petitioners' belated approach to this court seeking anticipatory bail. It has not been explained why they did not seek anticipatory bail immediately after April 6,2013, if they were implicated on the basis of false accusations. The certified copy of the orders passed in the case instituted by the first petitioner reveals that the accused in that case were granted bail and anticipatory bail; and that some accused had surrendered themselves to the court concerned. On the facts, we do not think it is a case for anticipatory bail.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.
sh ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)
(Indrajit Chatterjee, J)
3