Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3086/2023rejected

Abhishek Das v. State Of West Bengal

2023-10-03Honble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash,Hon'Ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen3 pages

C.R.M. (A) 3084 of 2023 03.10.2023 SL. 17+18 Court No. 29 Suvayan (Rejected) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Baguiati Police Station Case No. 393 of 2023 dated 09.07.2023 under Sections 420/406 of the IPC.

And In the matter of: Madhumay Chakraborty ....petitioner.

With C.R.M. (A) 3086 of 2023 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Baguiati Police Station Case No. 393 of 2023 dated 09.07.2023 under Sections 420/406 of the IPC.

And In the matter of: Abhishek Das ....petitioner.

Mr. M. F. A. Begg Ms. Pusmita Das Mr. Pradip Bose ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Suman De ...for the State in CRM (A) 3084 of 2023.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee ...for the State in CRM (A) 3086 of 2023

1. Heard learned Advocate for both the parties.

2. Perused the report of I.O. In spite of our order dated 22.08.2023 the petitioners did not appear before the I.O.

3. Bail is a matter of fiat and discretion of the Court is dependent on such fiat on the part of the petitioner/petitioners seeking bail. When it is found that the petitioner/petitioners is/are not alive to the direction of the Court and remain adamant so far as compliance of the order of the Court is concerned, it is obvious that the Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of such persons on the

hope that they shall cooperate in the investigation, even if the crime is a petty offence. In the present case, the petitioners have been charged under Section 406/420 IPC. Had they cooperated with the I.O., the matter could have been resolved to some extent. They having not cooperated and they having not come forward with any material to show that they intended to cooperate but they were prevented, we do not find any ground to disbelieve the report of the I.O. and the I.O. who is present in the Court.

4. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, we deem it just and proper to reject the prayer of anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, the prayer for the anticipatory bails are rejected.

6. The applications being CRM (A) 3084 of 2023 and CRM (A) 3086 of 2023 are dismissed.

(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)