Golam Faruk And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

06.06.2022 sdas Allowed C.R.M.(A) 2322 of 2022 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Paikar Police Station Case No. 112 of 2022 dated 06.05.2022 under Sections 447/323/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Golam Faruk & Ors. ...... petitioners Mr. Bitasok Banerjee Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya Mr. A. Salam .....for the petitioners Mr. Anowar Hossain Ms. Ratna Ghosh ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there are case and counter case between the parties. The present case is in retaliation to an earlier case lodged by the petitioners against the de facto complainant. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations, we are of the opinion extent of complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime requires to be assessed in the light of the aforesaid circumstances and the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

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 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. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, 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.)