Younis @ Md. Yeanus Shaikh And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

06.06.2022 sdas Allowed C.R.M.(A) 2328 of 2022 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalgola Police Station Case No. 126 of 2022 dated 17.04.2022 under Sections 448/323/325/307/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Younis @ Md. Yeanus Shaikh & Ors. ...... petitioners Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. Golam Nure Imrohi Mr. Debapriya Majumder Mr. Kaushik Dey .....for the petitioners Mr. Navanil De ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was a free fight between two political groups. Case and counter case have been registered. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Having considered the materials on record and keeping in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners and in view of the fact that the injuries appearing from the medical papers do not appear to be grievous, we are inclined in granting 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 meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and 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.)