Sanjib Mahanta @ Sandip Mahanta And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

15.09.2021 Ct. No. 29 sdas Allowed C.R.M. 5755 of 2021 (via video conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Lalgarh Police Station Case No. 67 of 2021 dated 23.07.2021 under Sections 448/341/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Sanjib Mahanta @ Sandip Mahanta & Ors. ... petitioners Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra .....for the petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy Ms. Sima Biswas ....for the State Petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there was an incident with regard to the disputes arise in the locality and there are cases and counter cases in between the parties.

Learned advocate appearing for the State draws attention of the Court to the injury report and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, injury report and the statement under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, we are inclined to grant 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 conditions that the petitioners no. 1 and 4 shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and petitioners no. 2 and 3 shall co-operate with the investigation and they shall appear before the jurisdictional court and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, 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.)