Allowed

Jagdeep Kumar @Bhurali and Ors. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC24 Sept 2021CRM/5849/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram allowed anticipatory bail to three petitioners (Jagdeep Kumar, Krishnandu Ray, Abhishek Kumar Gupta) in an FIR under Sections 324, 114 IPC and Arms Act, treating the application as not pressed for the fourth petitioner who was already arrested.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to three petitioners subject to bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, and conditions of meeting the IO fortnightly and applying for regular bail within four weeks.

Jagdeep Kumar @Bhurali and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

24.09.2021

¶2

21 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK Allowed

¶3

C.R.M. 5849 of 2021 (via video conference)

¶4

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with South Port Police Station Case No. 82 of 2021 dated 27.07.2021 under Sections 324/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and adding Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶5

And

¶6

In Re : Jagdeep Kumar @ Bhutali & Ors. ...… petitioners Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya Mr. Anand Kesari Mr. Sekhar Mukherjee ..…for the petitioners Mr. Neguive Ahmed Ms. Trina Mitra .…for the State

¶7

Petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners were falsely implicated. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the petitioner no. 3 was arrested during the pendency of the present application and was granted bail by the Jurisdictional Court. The weapon causing the injury was recovered by the police.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

¶11

Considering that the petitioner no. 3 (Suray Yadav @ Pakya Yadav) was arrested during the pendency of the present application, this application is treated as not pressed in respect of petitioner no. 3. Considering the fact that, the weapon causing injury was recovered by the police, we grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 namely Jagdeep Kumar @ Bhutali, Krishnandu Ray @ Krishnendu Rai and Abhishek Kumar Gupta @ Sunny.

¶12

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further conditions that the petitioners shall meet the investigating officer once in a fortnight till the conclusion of the investigation and shall appear before the jurisdictional court and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date.

¶13

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

¶14

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶15

(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

¶16

Jagdeep Kumar @Bhurali and Ors. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdeep Kumar @Bhurali and Ors. 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

Prakash Show and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Manirul @ Manirul Islam Vs State of West Bengal

Arun Kumar Saha Vs State of West Bengal

Babai Biswas and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Siraj Ali and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Jahangir Alam Vs State of West Bengal