Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/4809/2022dismissed as rejected

Sekh Nasima Bagum @ Nasima Khatu v. State Of West Bengal

2022-11-23Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

23.11.2022 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK REJECTED C.R.M.(A) 4809 of 2022 (CRAN 1 of 2022) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Panchla Police Station Case No. 295 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022 under Sections 420/406/417/465/468/470/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

And In Re : Sekh Nasima Begum @ Nasima Khatun ...... petitioner Mr. Avinaba Patra Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Ms. Souraja De ....for the petitioner Mr. S. S. Imam Mr. Arabinda Manna ....for the State Report as called for by the order dated November 18, 2022 filed in Court be taken on record.

Initially, the petitioner was permitted to make over the original title Deed to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) by the order dated November 7, 2022. The matter was fixed on November 14, 2022.

On November 14, 2022 when the matter was taken up, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner went to the I.O. on November 9, 2022 between 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and that the I.O. did not receive the original title Deed. In such circumstances, a report was called for. On November 18, 2022, the application was taken up when, it was contended that, the petitioner went on November

8, 2022 instead of November 9, 2022 as was incorrectly stated on the previous occasion. Consequently, a further report was called for.

Today, the state submits a report which be taken on record.

The State in the report dated November 22, 2022 states that on perusal of the CCTV footage, it can be stated with certainty that the petitioner did not enter the police station on November 8, 2022 at all.

In view of the conduct of the petitioner as noted above and in view of the materials in the case diary implicating the petitioner, a case for immediate custodial interrogation of the petitioner stands made out. Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected and the application being CRM (A) 4809 of 2022 is dismissed.

CRAN 1 of 2022 is also disposed of accordingly. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)