Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3346/2022dismissed

Samit Kumar Dutta And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

2022-07-14Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De2 pages

C.R.M. (A) 3346 of 2022 14.07.2022 Sl. 19 Court No.29 (AD) (Rejected) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection Kushmandi Police Station Case No.216 of 2021 dated 11/12/2021 under Sections 272/273/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Charge sheet submitted under Sections 272/273/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and supplementary charge sheet submitted under Sections 272/273/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) presently pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge at Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur.

And In the matter of: Samit Kumar Dutta & Ors.

....petitioners.

Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee Ms. Pritha Sinha ...for the petitioners.

Mr. Antarikhya Basu ...for the State.

Petitioners pray for anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioners were not named in the First Information Report. The petitioners were sought to be incorporated in the supplementary charge sheet.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the huge quantity of contaminated and adulterated mustard oil were seized. He submits that from the spot two persons were arrested. Those two persons named the persons who are the owners of the seized articles. He refers to the forensic report. He submits that the mustard oil was found to be substandard and unsafe. The

petitioners stand implicated.

There is a forensic report stating that the mustard oil seized was unsafe and substandard. The involvement of the petitioners appears from the materials in the case diary. Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioners therein as transpiring from the materials in the case dairy, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to any of the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

C.R.M. (A) 3346 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)