Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Code vs In Re: Dr. Deepak Shankar Ray on 3 August, 2023
03.08.2023
Sl. No.30
akd
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (DB) 3080 of 2023
In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 27.07.2023 in connection with Chatterjeehat Police
Station Case No.78 of 2023 under Sections
420/406/448/341/323/379/354B/307/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
And
In Re: Dr. Deepak Shankar Ray
... ... Petitioner
Mrs. Malabika Saha
Ms. Sharmistha Paul
... ... for the petitioner
xxx (name withheld)
... ... de-facto complainant [in person]
Mr. Sudip Ghosh
Mr. Bitasok Banerjee
... ... for the State
1.Petitioner is an oncologist. He had a matrimonial dispute with his wife. Matrimonial proceeding as well as proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act were instituted. De-facto complainant, a practicing lawyer, represented the petitioner in these proceedings. In course of their professional relationship, it is contended de-facto complainant raised bills upon the petitioner but they remained unpaid. She had also rendered professional advise to the father of the petitioner who was residing at Vellore in the State of Tamil Nadu. In these circumstances, it is alleged the de-facto complainant had gone to Vellore to interact with the father of the petitioner for preparation of statement of assets to be furnished in the matrimonial proceedings. Differences cropped up between them. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an e-mail to the de-facto complainant relieving her from the responsibility of representing him in the legal proceedings. 2 This is the backdrop in which the present criminal case came to be registered.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits de-facto complainant was unhappy. She had been replaced in the legal proceedings. In retaliation, she lodged the instant criminal case. Allegations of theft, assault and even rape are wholly untrue. In fact, de-facto complainant had levelled similar allegation of rape against her in- laws which ended in a final report. A writ petition being WPA 99 of 2023 has been instituted by the de-facto complainant in connection with the said case. Petitioner is in custody for about three weeks and there is no development in the investigation. Accordingly, he prays for bail.
3. De-facto complainant appears in person. She contends she has been cheated by the petitioner and his family members including his father. Out of goodwill, she had come to Tamil Nadu to consult with the nonagenarian father. Therein, she had been ill-treated. They did not pay her remuneration. Subsequently, she came to know she had been replaced in the legal proceedings. Thereafter, she has been continuously threatened not only by the petitioner but his associate including one Kanad Saha. A separate criminal case has been registered against the said Kanad Saha and his wife alleging they had threatened to withdraw the criminal case. She also alleged that the petitioner had committed theft of Rs.65,000/- as well as her mobile phone. She apprehends petitioner may misuse the mobile phone and malign her.
4. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and produces the case diary. He refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is 3 also contended petitioner had tried to flee away and had been arrested from Petrapole border.
5. In rebuttal, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits the insinuations by the de-facto complainant against her and her husband in course of arguments are not only false but defamatory. She has been maligned in order to dissuade her from representing the petitioner in this case.
6. We have given anxious considerations to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. The case portrays a problematic area of emotions intervening in a lawyer-client relationship. Petitioner was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife. He had chosen the de-facto complainant as his lawyer. Materials on record give an impression that the de-facto complainant had not only represented the petitioner in various litigations against his wife but had become a family friend and was regularly consulted by the petitioner and his father on other issues.
7. Closeness of association between them is evident from the fact that the de-facto complainant accompanied the petitioner to Tamil Nadu to interview his nonagenarian father for preparing the statement of assets in the matrimonial proceedings. Subsequently, the relationship soured and the petitioner sought to withdraw the authority of the de-facto complainant to represent him in the legal proceedings. Thereafter, the present case has been registered.
8. It is alleged in the FIR that on 29.04.2023, petitioner and his associate came to the chamber of the de-facto complainant and committed theft of Rs.65,000/-, her briefs and mobile phone. She was sexually assaulted. Though the allegations are very serious and involve sexual assault on a lady, credibility of such allegations requires to be thrashed out in the light of the prior relationship 4 between the parties and the disputes which had cropped up inter se in Tamil Nadu shortly prior to the incident.
9. We choose not to make any further comments lest it may affect the merits of the case.
10. It may not be out of place to note that the de-facto complainant had earlier made allegations of rape against her in-laws which had ended in a final report. Though the de-facto complainant is a member of the legal profession, FIR was registered after five days i.e. on 04.05.2023. Medical examination does not give corroborative support to the allegations of physical or sexual assault. It is noted in the medical report no external injuries were found on her. In course of investigation, petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody. There is no development in investigation during police custody. None of the alleged stolen articles have been recovered from the petitioner.
11. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion further detention of the accused/petitioner for progress of investigation is not necessary.
12. However, there is another angle to the case. De-facto complainant has very forcefully contended that she is being harassed by the petitioner and his associates. She apprehends that her professional life may be at stake.
13. While considering the bail prayer of the petitioner, this Court needs to take cognizance of the aforesaid facts in order to ensure that the life, safety and professional activities of the de-facto complainant are in no way affected.
14. We have also considered the allegation that the petitioner is employed in Bangladesh and may abscond.
5
15. These aspects may be addressed by imposing restrictions upon the petitioner with regard to his movement and access to the de-facto complainant.
16. Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely Dr. Deepak Shankar Ray, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah subject to condition that the said petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that the petitioner, while on bail, shall not enter the jurisdiction of Chatterjeehat Police Station as well as Beliaghata Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and shall report to the Officer-in-charge, Purba Jadavpur Police Station within whose jurisdiction he shall presently reside once in a week until further orders. Prior to his release, petitioner shall deposit his Passport before the court below. While on bail, petitioner shall not contact the de-facto complainant directly or through electronic means in any manner whatsoever. He shall not directly or indirectly upload any material relating to the de-facto complainant on the internet.
17. In the event he fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions or appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.
18. The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
6