Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/967/2025dismissed as rejected

Anup Ghosh v. State Of West Bengal

2025-03-21Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Smita Das De3 pages

21.03.2025 Item No.11 Ct. No. 26 CHC Rejected C.R.M.(A) 967 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Manikchak Police Station Case No. 561 of 2024 dated 04.08.2024 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Anup Das ..... petitioner Md. Wasim Akram, Advocate ....for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Advocate ....for the State Ms. Reshmi Khatun, Advocate ...for the de facto complainant

1. Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant stands settled.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that, the dispute stands settled and they want to resume their business relationship.

4. In response to the query of a Court as to whether, the police complaint was correct or not the answer is in the affirmative by the learned advocate for the defacto complainant.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the State refers to materials in the Case Diary. He submits that, right eye of the de facto complainant was severely affected in the incident of assault in which, the petitioner participated. He also points out that, coordinate Bench rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail for two of the accused on February 7, 2025 passed in CRM(A) 383 of 2025.

6. Offences alleged as against the petitioner is not compoundable.

7. Coordinate Bench rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the coaccused on February 7, 2025 passed in CRM(A) 383 of 2025.

8. Enlarging the petitioner on an anticipatory bail on the plea that they entered into settlement with the de facto complainant will send a wrong signal to the society. Alleged settlement was entered into subsequent to the order of rejection.

9. This kind of activity should be actively discouraged.

10. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

11. CRM(A) 967 of 2025 is, thus, rejected.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)