Rahim v. State Of West Bengal

09.06.2022 sdas Allowed C.R.M.(A) 2386 of 2022 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No. 116 of 2021 dated 12.02.2021 under Sections 448/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. And In Re : Rahim ...... petitioner Mr. Kalidas Saha .....for the petitioner Ms. Zareen N. Khan Mr. Asoke Das ....for the State Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, we are of the opinion though custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, his movement requires to be restricted in order to instill confidence in the mind of victim.

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 further conditions that the

petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Chanchal Police Station while on anticipatory bail except for the purpose of investigation and attending the Court proceedings and shall provide the address where he shall reside to the investigating officer as well as the Court below. 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.)