The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC to prevent arrest in a murder case (Sections 377/302 IPC). The court found custodial interrogation necessary and dismissed the petition.
The application for anticipatory bail was rejected and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
05.08.2021
Court No.28 Item No. JB-06 nandy
CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AT JALPAIGURI
(Via Video Conference)
CRM 672 of 2021
In Re:- An application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 117 of 2021 dated 14.03.2021 under Sections 377/302 of the Indian Penal Code;
and
In the matter of: Ajay Sarkar
……Petitioner
Mr. Debjit Kundu, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Luksom, Advocate Mr. Biswarup Roy, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
…...for the State
The Advocate-on-record of the petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within four weeks from date. Subject to such undertaking the application is taken up for hearing.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 117 of 2021 dated 14.03.2021 under Sections 377/302 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail on the premise that there was no incriminating materials available from the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
The learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the deceased has disclosed
2
the fact before his death over the complicity of the petitioner to the alleged offence.
Though a plea has been taken that there is no such material on the record that the boys have relationship with each other, which was not accepted by the father of the deceased, we do not think that it is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Moreover, the case is at the nebulous stage.
As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected .
The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 672 of 2021 is thus dismissed .
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail application should be accepted to prevent custodial interrogation in a murder case involving alleged complicity.
Whether the allegations against the petitioner necessitate custodial interrogation given the nebulous stage of the case.
Whether the presence of incriminating materials or lack of material disclosure affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Sarkar
Harish Tandon
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
