Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/2693/2023rejected

Harmeet Singh @ Harmeet Singh Rajpal And ANR v. State Of West Bengal

2023-07-26Honble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash,Hon'Ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen3 pages

C.R.M. (A) 2693 of 2023 26.07.2023 SL. 17 Court No. 29 Sourav In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Electronic Compled Police Station Case No. 35 of 2023 dated 15.03.2023 under Sections 419/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC and Sections 20/21 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

And In the matter of: Harmeet Singh @ Harmeet Singh Rajpal & Anr.

....petitioners.

Mr. Karan Sharma Mr. Saket Sharma ...for the petitioners.

Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP Ms. Sonali Das ...for the State.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The design in which the company owned by the present petitioners as a partner is functioning, we smell a bigger circle around the dot which is before us. The modus of operandi of the entire transaction by the company as found from the police papers justifies custodial interrogation of the petitioners. At this Stage, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 who is a lady is in advanced stage of pregnancy.

3. Regard being had to all the aforesaid facts and submissions, we reject the prayer for anticipatory bail so far as the petitioner no. 1 (Harmeet Singh @ Harmeet Singh Rajpal) is concerned police is advised to take effective step for his apprehension in accordance with law.

4. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the petitioner no. 2 is directed to produce the medical papers relating to her

pregnancy and EDD before the I.O. within 15 days from today. If the I.O. is satisfied about the pregnancy of the petitioner and her health condition, she shall not be arrested for a period of three months after giving birth to her child.

5. We also feel persuaded to make it clear that by the time as aforesaid, if investigation has progressed substantially by cooperation of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 2 may renew her prayer for anticipatory bail before expiry of the aforesaid period.

6. The petitioner no. 2 shall, however, co-operate in the investigation as and when required.

7. Learned Counsel for the State is request to forward a server copy of this order to the concerned I.O.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for the anticipatory bail is rejected so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.

9. The application being CRM (A) 2693 of 2023 is disposed of. (Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)