Allowed

Sentu Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC2 Jul 2021CRM/2814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail for apprehended arrest under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B IPC. Finding that stolen articles were already recovered, the Court held custodial interrogation unwarranted and directed bail upon furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties.

Sentu Sk. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

02.07.2021 Item no.05 Court No.30 Avijit Mitra

¶2

C.R.M.2814 of 2020 (through video conference)

¶3

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

¶4

And

¶5

In Re : Sentu Sk. & anr. …. petitioners

¶6

Mr. Amajit De ….for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Soumik Ganguli …… for the State

¶7

Apprehending arrest in connection with Coke Oven Police Station Case No.7 of 2020 dated 09.01.2020 under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been preferred.

¶8

Records reveal that by an order dated 15^th December, 2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the case for a period of four weeks or until further orders.

¶9

Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Their names have transpired on the basis of the statement of a coaccused person, before a police officer, which is inadmissible in evidence. The vehicles have already been recovered. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶10

He further submits that the petitioners have duly complied with the conditions as incorporated in the earlier order dated 15^th December, 2020.

¶11

¶12

Mr. Bapuli, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners’ prayer. However, drawing our attention to the seizure lists, he submits that the two vehicles with scrap iron had been recovered.

¶13

He further submits that the petitioners have complied with the earlier conditions as incorporated in the earlier order dated 15^th December, 2020. Let the report, as produced, be kept on record.

¶14

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

¶15

Considering the materials in the case diary and since the stolen articles have already been recovered, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners, namely, Sentu Sk and Rezina Begum , shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶17

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM No.2814 of 2020, is disposed of.

¶18

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶19

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

¶20

Sentu Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sentu Sk. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Anil Hazra @ Anil Kumar Hazra & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Mohammad Mantu Sk. Vs State of West Bengal

Raja Roy & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Mithun Biswas & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Safi Sk Alias Safiuddin Sk and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal