Abdul Rafik Mondal And Another v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
AD 418 April 25, 2025 Ct. 28 SG CRR 53 of 2025 In the matter of: Abdul Rafik Mondal and another ... petitioners Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta Mr. Subham Kumar Dutta ... for the petitioners.
Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. PP Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Debjani Sahu ... for the State.
Mr. Nirupam Dhali Mr. D. Guha ... for the de facto complainant.
Supplementary affidavit filed in Court is taken on record. Report filed by the State is also taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is a heart patient and is about 63 years old. He has a trade licence of a grocery shop within the jurisdiction of Memari Police Station. His wife is suffering from ailments. The petitioner No.2 is a B.Ed student and is often required to visit his residence. The petitioners have duly complied with the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court while granting bail.
Learned counsel for the de facto complainant, upon instructions, opposes the prayer for relaxation and submits that after getting bail there were some occasions on which
the petitioners came and threatened the de facto complainant.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that as per the report filed, the petitioners were complying with the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Purba Burdwan on 21.06.2024.
Furthermore, there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioners.
It appears that the petitioners have been complying with the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court while granting bail of not entering into the jurisdiction of Memari Police Station.
It also does not appear that any GD entry or other application was filed by the de facto complainant on the ground of threats given or anything else.
In view of the above, the condition imposed while granting bail of not entering into the jurisdiction of Memari Police Station by the Sessions Court is relaxed and waived. However, the petitioners shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses and be present before the jurisdictional court on all dates fixed.
In the event the petitioners give any threat to the de facto complainant or other witnesses, the jurisdictional Court
shall be at liberty to pass any order in this regard without further reference to this Court.
Accordingly, the revisional application is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)