Ashutosh Kumar Sah @ Ashu Gupta @ Ashu v. The State Of West Bengal

CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT 01.10.2021 AT JALPAIGURI Court No.01 Item No. 06 Rejected Krishnendu C.R.M. 352 of 2021 With C.R.A.N. 1 of 2021 (Via Video Conference) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;

And In Re : Ashutosh Kumar Sah @ Ashu Gupta @ Ashu Petitioner Mr. Hillol Saha Podder Ms. Arpita Saha For the Petitioner Mr. Biswarup Roy For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 855 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018 under sections 3/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the petitioner has filed the present application.

Mr. Saha Podder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, at the inception, submits that the present application is the second application for anticipatory bail. The first application was dismissed on

7th February, 2019 observing that the petitioner was the owner of the premises. However, from the orders passed by the learned Court below, subsequent thereto, it transpired that the petitioner is not the owner of the shop and, as such, there had been a change in the circumstances and the present application is maintainable. He further submits that upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been submitted and as such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner's prayer and submits that there had been no change in the circumstances. The certificate of enlistment pertaining to the concerned saloon and spa stands in the name of the petitioner and he is a tenant of the concerned premises. There are incriminating materials on record as regards the petitioner's direct involvement in the alleged offence. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, we are of the opinion that there had been no change in the circumstances due to subsequent events after the petitioner's prayer of anticipatory bail was

last rejected on 7th February, 2019. Furthermore, considering the gravity of the offence and the extent of complicity of the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.

The application for anticipatory bail, being C.R.M. No. 352 of 2021 and the connected application, being C.R.A.N. 1 of 2021, are dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J)