Sandeep Singh@Rinku v. The State

04.11.2022 Serial no. 01 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected) In the High Court At Calcutta Circuit Bench at Port Blair CRM (A) 6 of 2022 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 165 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 154 Cr.PC, U/s. 376[D], 228[A], 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. -AndIn the matter of : Shri Sandeep Singh @ Rinku ... ...Petitioner Mr. Milon Mukherjee, ld. Sr. adv.

Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz, Advocates ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Salim Mohammed, (via video conferencing) Ms. A. S. Ziru Advocate (Via video conferencing) ... ...For the State Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He submits that one of the co-accuseds initially approached the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi and was granted interim protection. Such interim protection was continued by the co-ordinate Bench. He refers to such order of the Coordinate Bench. He submits that the present petitioner stands on a better footing than that of the other co-accused who was granted interim protection. He submits that that the next Circuit Bench is scheduled to commence on and from November 14, 2022. Till such time, his client should also be afforded the same facility as was afforded to the other co-accused.

On the merits of the matter, he submits that the petitioner stands on a better footing than that of other co-accused who was granted interim protection. He refers to the first information report lodged by the de facto complainant. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents thereof. He draws the attention of the Court to the petition filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code as also the order passed therein. He submits that the de facto complainant was vacillating in her statements made against the accused including the petitioner. According to him, there are embellishments in the statements of the de facto complainant made before different authorities. Consequently, he submits that interim protection may be afforded to the petitioner till at least the commencement of the next Circuit Bench. Learned advocate appearing for the Administration refers to the materials in the case diary including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In view of the matter being heard on video conferencing platform, we requested the learned advocate for the Administration to place the relevant portion of the statements of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure.

The portion of the statement of the de facto complainant which the learned advocate appearing for the Administration placed, implicates the petitioner in the incident. The petitioner is identified as the person who initiated criminal activities. The complicity of the petitioner in the events cannot be overlooked. The victim underwent a medical examination. The statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes out prima facie case as against the petitioner.

So far as the claim for parity with the other co-accused and, in fact, the claim of the petitioner that he stands on a

better footing than that of the other co-accused is concerned, we are unable to concur with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in that regard. The other co-accused was initially before the Delhi High Court which granted interim protection. The interim protection was extended by the coordinate Bench. The co-ordinate Bench did not discuss anything as to the materials in the case diary as against the co-accused.

In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (A) 6 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)