Debu Saha @ Raju v. State Of West Bengal

07.06.2022 sdas Allowed C.R.M.(A) 2347 of 2022 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Dhantala Police Station Case No. 242 of 2022 dated 25.04.2022 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In Re : Debu Saha @ Raju ...... petitioner Ms. Sananda Bhattacharyya .....for the petitioner Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee Ms. Sonali Das ....for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that co-accused has been granted bail in CRM (DB) 1356 of 2022 passed on 06.06.2022.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Keeping in mind the materials on record and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime and as coaccused has been granted bail, we are inclined to extend the same privilege to the petitioner also.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, 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 he 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.)