Gopi Duraisamy R. And ANR. v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** CRM(A)/3/2023 Gopi Duraisamy R. and another Vs.

The State Mr. Sabir Ahmed (through virtual mode) Mr. G.Ravi Shanker ... for the petitioners Mr. A. S.Zinu ... for the State July 25, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 Apprehending arrest in connection with Chatham Police Station Case No. 27 of 2023 dated 29.04.2023 under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been preferred.

Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 married the complainant, namely, Sumadhi, on 6th February, 2022.

Subsequent thereto, matrimonial disputes cropped up and Sumadhi preferred an application for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner no.1 also filed a suit for divorce. As a counter blast, a complaint was lodged by Sumadhi. No specific overt act has been attributed to the parents of the petitioner no.1, being the petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are aged and ailing. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary and they may be granted anticipatory bail. Ms. Zinu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State and submits that there are incriminating materials on record against the petitioners. The investigation is not yet complete. The petitioners have not complied with the Section 41A notice. In view thereof, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

When the matter was last taken up for hearing on 17th July, 2023, this Court directed the petitioner no.1 to meet the with the Investigating Officer on 19th July, 2023 and we also directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the meantime.

Today, we have been informed by Ms. Zinu that in spite of the earlier order dated 17th July, 2023, the petitioner no.1 did not meet with the Investigating Officer on the schedule date. In view of such conduct of the petitioner no.1, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour and his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Upon considering the materials in the case diary, the extent of complicity of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in the alleged offence and their age, we are of the opinion that their custodial interrogation in this case is not necessary.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners, namely, Thiru D Ramakrishnan and Saundaria, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and the petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall also meet the Investigating Officer as and when directed. It is made clear that in the event of non-compliance of the conditions specified, the anticipatory bail shall stand rejected without any further reference to this Court.

With the above directions and observations, CRM(A)/3/2023 is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. ) ( Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)