Sourav Kumar Pain @ Sourav Pain v. State Of West Bengal

24.09.2020. (Via Video Conference) Item No. 19 (Rejected) ab C.R.M. 6645 of 2020 + I.A. No. C.R.A.N. 1 of 2020 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 481 of 2019 dated 12.12.2019 under Sections 498A/323/307/354/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; And In the matter of : Sourav Kumar Pain alias Sourav Pain ... petitioner.

Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty. .....For the petitioner. Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan, Mr. C. R. Ghosh.

...For the State.

The Advocate-on-Record of the petitioners undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within forty-eight hours of resumption of the normal functioning of the Court. Subject to such undertaking and urgency the application is taken up for hearing through Video Conference.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application being IA No. CRAN 1 of 2020 is disposed of.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a false case has been lodged against him and there is no substantial allegation made by the wife warranting any cognizance to be taken against him.

The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and relies upon the statement of the wife recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After hearing the respective Counsels and upon perusal of the statements of the complainant/victim made under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Harish Tandon, J.)