Calcutta High CourtCRM/468/2021dismissed

Faruk Sekh @ Umar Faruk And ORS v. The State Of West Bengal

2021-09-27Hon'Ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty,Hon'Ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay2 pages

CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AT JALPAIGURI 27.09.2021 Court No.01 rpan /24 C.R.M. 468 of 2021 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

and In Re : Faruk Sekh @ Umar Faruk & Others ....Petitioners.

Mr. Surajit Basu, Mr. Ratan Chandra Roy ... for the petitioners.

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP, Mr. Aniruddha Biswas ... for the State.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No.78 of 2021 dated 06.03.2021 under Sections 186/188/353/332/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed the present application. On the prayer of Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, the present application, so far as the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, namely, Faruk Sekh @ Umar Faruk, 2. Yusuf Sekh @ Ichhub Ali Sekh, 3. Ashraful Sekh @ Miah and 4. Afoj Ali @ Afaz Uddin respectively are concerned, is dismissed as not pressed.

Mr. Basu, further submits that the petitioner no.5 has been falsely implicated since his wife had lodged a complaint before the police authorities stating that on 20th December, 2020 some persons from the BSF camp forcibly entered into her residence and assaulted her daughter. No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner no.5 and there is no likelihood that the petitioner

would flee from justice. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation is not necessary.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner no.5 and draws our attention to the statements of the witnesses, as recorded under Section 161 of the Code and the seizure list.

Having heard the learned advocates and considering the materials in the case diary, including the seizure list, the nature of accusations and the extent of complicity of the petitioner no.5 in the alleged incident, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour and as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail so far as the petitioner no.5, being CRM 468 of 2021 is concerned , is also 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.)