Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/6004/2022dismissed as rejected

Md Nejamuddin @ Moulavi Nijamuddin And ANR v. State Of West Bengal

2023-01-03Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

C.R.M. (A) 6004 of 2022 03.01.2023 Sl.16 Court No.29 (AD) (Rejected) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No.989 of 2016 dated 07.08.2016 under Sections 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code, (corresponding to Charge Sheet No.505 of dated 05.08.2019).

And In the matter of: Md. Nejamuddin @ Moulavi Nijamuddin & Anr.

....petitioners.

Mr. Shekhar Kumar Basu, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Antarikhya Basu Mr. Sayon Mukherjee Ms. Madhumita Basak ... for the petitioners.

Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Ld. APP Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Iqbal Kabir ...for the State.

The prayer for anticipatory bail is renewed by way of the present application.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a change in circumstances subsequent to the earlier order of rejection.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners requests the Court to peruse the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the petitioners are not implicated either under the provisions of the POCSO Act or kidnapping or abduction are concerned.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary. He submits that, proclamation and attachment were effected against the petitioners. He questions the maintainability of the application for anticipatory

bail. That apart, he submits that, there are sufficient materials in the case diary implicating the petitioners.

There is a statement recorded by the minor victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where she claims that she was forcibly taken to a place at Delhi, made to marry and enter into a physical relationship.

The complicity of the petitioners appears from the materials presently available in the case diary. There is hardly material change in circumstances subsequent to the earlier order of rejection.

In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

C.R.M. (A) 6004 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)