Allowed

Suranjit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2021CRM/710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, finding no prima facie complicity of the petitioner in an abetment-to-suicide case and deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary, subject to standard bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner directed to furnish bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Suranjit Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

05.08.2021

¶2

Court No.28 Item No.20 (ALLOWED)

¶3

Saswata

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶5

(Via Video Conference)

¶6

CRM 710 of 2021

¶7

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Dhupguri Police Station Case No. 152 of 2021 dated 15.04.2021 under Sections 306/506 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶8

And

¶9

In the matter of : Suranjit Sarkar

¶10

…Petitioner

¶11

Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kushal Kumar Mukherjee

¶12

…For the Petitioner

¶13

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, APP Mr. Ujjal Luksom Mr. Aniruddha Biswas

¶14

...For the State.

¶15

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.

¶16

Apprehending arrest in connection with Dhupguri Police Station Case No. 152 of 2021 under Sections 306/506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

There was a love relation between the petitioner and the deceased. The deceased committed suicide and the petitioner has been implicated in connection with the aforesaid case, solely on the ground of abetment. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case and has applied for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The matter was adjourned on the last occasion, as we were informed that the deceased had a habit of writing her feelings in personal diary. The photocopy of the same has been produced today, as the original copy has been sent to the expert to examine the handwriting of the deceased. We proceeded on the basis of the photocopy, thereof, treating the same to be sacrosanct at this stage, as the State intends to rely thereupon.

¶19

We do not find prima facie complicity of the petitioner to the alleged offence and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed.

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousan only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week or as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation process without intimidating witness or tampering the documents and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 710 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of .

¶23

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Suranjit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suranjit Sarkar 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

Sukumar Bauri and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk Sakir Ali @Sk Jiksarul Ali Vs State of West Bengal

Yeasin Sk @Yasin Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Ajay Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar Vs State of West Bengal

Ichhab Sekh @ Rafikul Sekh and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal