Calcutta High CourtCRM/4909/2021dismissed

Krishna Bhanja v. State Of West Bengal

2021-12-07Hon'Ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty,Hon'Ble Justice Sugato Majumdar2 pages

07.12.2021 Court No.32 Item No. 178 Krishnendu Dismissed CRM 4909 of 2021 (Via video Conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

And In re: Krishna Bhanja

...Petitioner

Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Mr. Md. Sahidullah Mridha Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi ... For the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Imam Mr. Subrata Roy ...For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Baruipur Police Station Case No. 2763 of 2019 dated 02.12.2019 under Sections 363/366/368/371 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been preferred.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant took a loan of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner on 30th March, 2019 and he did not refund the same. As a consequence thereof, a dispute occurred and a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. The victim is a married lady, having a daughter and it would be explicit from the averments made in the application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she left her residence informing her daughter but the daughter has not yet been examined. On the alleged date and time of the incident, the petitioner was

engaged in an executive meeting of Sree Sree Ramkrishna Vivekananda Sevasram. The petitioner has thus been falsely implicated and as such his custodial interrogation is not warranted.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State, opposes the petitioner's prayer and draws our attention to the statements of the witnesses, as recorded under section 161 of the Code and submits that investigation is not yet complete. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials in the case diary, the nature of accusations, the gravity of the offence and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner, more so when, investigation is still continuing and the victim lady has not yet been recovered. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM No. 4909 of 2021, is, accordingly, dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)