Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
CRM (A)/2865/2024 on 20 August, 2024
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
20.08.2024
Court No.29
Item No.20
Allowed
ar
CRM (A) 2865 of 2024
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Metiabruz Police Station
Case No. 96 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024 corresponding to A.C.G.R Case No.
3767 of 2024 under Sections 324(3)/351(2)/54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
In Re: Manoj Tewari
Petitioner
Mr. Kaustav Bagchi
Ms. Priti Kar For the Petitioner
Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. APP
Mr. S.Barman For the State
Mr. Pradyut Saha
Ms. Ratna Dey For the De-facto Complainant
1.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the property with dilapidated structure. It is submitted that in view of the notice issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation under Section 411(1) of the K.M.C. Act, 1980 to the petitioner, while he was trying to implement the said order, he was prevented by the de-facto complainant. Initially, the petitioner approached the writ jurisdiction where the police were directed to ensure that the petitioner was not obstructed in carrying out the repairing works, the construction of the common wall standing on the two buildings between M/92 and M/93 Paharpur Road, Kolkata. However, an appeal preferred by a third party, the de-facto complainant, where the said order was stayed and certain directions have been passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
Signed By :
AMITAVA ROY High Court of Calcutta 21 st of August 2024 02:43:29 PM 2
2. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.
3. Learned counsel for the State in opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail has submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and there are many cases against the petitioner and the charges are serious in nature.
4. Learned advocate for the de-facto complainant submits that the premises over which the petitioner has made a claim and wanted to demolish the said structure the de-facto complainant runs a school and the petitioner by showing muscle power wants to take possession of the school and demolish the existing structure.
5. Considering the materials available in case diary, the nature and extent of complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence and in absence of any disclosure in the case diary wherefrom it appears that any arm was recovered from the petitioner in any of the alleged offence and also having regard to the dispute existing between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.
6. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, namely, Manoj Tewari shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two registered sureties of like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also to comply with the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once in a week till the submission of the final report and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, within two weeks from date in connection Signed By :
AMITAVA ROY High Court of Calcutta 21 st of August 2024 02:43:29 PM 3 with A.C.G.R Case No. 3767 of 2024. In the event of non-compliance of any of the conditions, the anticipatory bail shall stand automatically cancelled without any further reference to this Court.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed and the same is accordingly disposed of.
8. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Soumen Sen, J) (Uday Kumar, J) Signed By :
AMITAVA ROY High Court of Calcutta 21 st of August 2024 02:43:29 PM