Harisadhan Roy v. State Of West Bengal

02.12.2020 Sl. No.58 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 9594 of 2020 [via video conferencing] In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.11.2020 in connection with Joypur Police Station Case No. 77 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re: Harisadhan Roy ... ... Petitioner Mr. Samiran Mandal .. Advocate Mr. Supratik Jana .. Advocate Mr. Abhinaba Dan .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala .. Advocate Ms. Subhasree Patel .. Advocate ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the unclein-law of the victim-housewife and has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

We have considered the materials on record including the statements of witnesses which disclose torture by the petitioner on the victim-housewife who was compelled to consume poison. In view of the prima facie role of the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined in granting anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)