Jiban Mondal And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

31.08.2021 sdas/AS Allowed C.R.M. 2964 of 2021 (via video conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 410 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016 under Sections 341/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Jiban Mondal & Ors. ...... petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra Ms. Saheli Dey .....for the petitioners Mr. S. S. Imam Mr. S. Kundu ....for the State Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 410 of 2016 dated 06.08.2016 under Sections 341/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the charge-sheet in the case was submitted. State is represented.

Perused the case diary produced in the Court. Police submitted charge-sheet. The injury report shows simple injury.

In view of nature of injury and considering the fact that the charge-sheet was submitted, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

C.R.M. 11960 of 2017 In Re:- An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.11.2017 in connection with Jagatballavpur Police Station Case No. 263 of 2017 dated 01.11.2017 under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. And In Re : Aslam Ali Sk. @ Aslam Sk. ...... petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ms. Amrita Chel .....for the petitioner Mr. N. P. Agarwala ....for the State Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

We have considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the opinion although custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in the facts of the case but movement of the petitioner requires to be restricted to instill confidence in the mind of the victim. (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)