Hasanur Miah @ Hasanur Rahaman v. The State Of West Bengal

05.12.2024 Sl No.42 s.biswas (Allowed) Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (A) 978 of 2024 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 531/2024 dated 02.10.2024 under Section 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/303(2)/351(2) of the BNS. And In Re: Hasanur Miah @ Hasanur Rahaman ... ... Petitioner Dr. Arjun Chowdhury Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury Ms. Riya Agarwal ... for the petitioner Ms. Sukanya Adhikary ... ... for the State

1. Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail on the ground that the complaint was lodged as a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner's wife against the husband of the de facto complainant under the POCSO Act.

2. Learned advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submits that investigation is going on.

3. We have considered the nature of injury. Considering the materials on record and moreover as the incident allegedly occurred in presence of direct evidence, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS

corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be extended to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of equal amount, to the satisfaction of arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of BNSS and further condition that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a week.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)