Partly allowed

tumpa sardar @tuki and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC7 Apr 2021CRM/650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court adjudicated an application for anticipatory bail. Bail for the first petitioner was dismissed as not pressed as she was already arrested. Bail for the second petitioner was allowed with specific bond conditions rather than custodial detention.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed for petitioner no. 1; allowed for petitioner no. 2 with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

tumpa sardar @tuki and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

07.04.2021 Item No.53 Ct.No.28

¶2

dc.

¶3

Partly Allowed

¶4

C.R.M. 650 of 2021

¶5

In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶6

And In Re : Tumpa Sardar @ Tuki & Anr. ... Petitioners. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee, Mr. Subhajyoti Chandra ... For the Petitioners. Mr. S. S. Imam, Mr. S. Kundu ... For the State.

¶7

Apprehending arrest in connection with Gopal Nagar P.S. Case No. 586 of 2020 dated 30.10.2020 (G.R. Case No. 2707 of 2020) under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been preferred.

¶8

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1, namely, Tumpa Sardar @ Tuki has already been arrested and as such, does not intend to press the application on her behalf. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner no.1 is dismissed as ‘not pressed’.

¶9

The learned advocate for the petitioner no. 2 submits that the petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of Tumpa Sardar @ Tuki who allegedly abused the victim and as such, has been implicated in the instant case.

¶10

¶11

The learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶12

We have perused the materials in the case diary which include the statements of the witnesses as also the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the complicity of the present petitioner no.2, we are of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner no.2 may not be warranted in the instant case.

¶14

Accordingly, we allow the application for anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner No. 2 and direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner No. 2, namely, Purnima Sardar @ Choto Buri , shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), 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.

¶15

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 650 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.

¶16

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶17

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

tumpa sardar @tuki and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

tumpa sardar @tuki and 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

Gopal Gour Vs State of West Bengal

Sk Hamidul Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal

Asraful Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

Rabindra Narayan Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Mithun Sardar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Mithun Sardar and Others Vs State of West Bengal