Allowed

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2021CRM/711/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Bench allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by Kiran Chandra Haldar in a Section 498A IPC case, holding that custodial interrogation was not necessary as no prima facie evidence of injury existed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties and cooperating with the investigation.

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar Vs State of West… — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

05.08.2021

¶2

Saswata

¶3

Court No.28 Item No.21 (ALLOWED)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶5

(Via Video Conference)

¶6

CRM 711 of 2021

¶7

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Malbazar Police Station Case No. 303 of 2021 dated 14.06.2021 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code; And

¶8

In the matter of : Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Shahan Shah

¶11

…For the Petitioner

¶12

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Saikat Chatterjee

¶13

...For the State.

¶14

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.

¶15

Apprehending arrest in connection with Malbazar Police Station Case No. 303 of 2021 dated 14.06.2021 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶17

Allegation is made against the petitioner by his wife, stating physical and mental torture for a long time.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge that the petitioner had already complied with the notice under Section 41A (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and met the Investigating Officer. There is no supporting evidence to prove, even prima facie, any physical injury inflicted upon the complainant by the petitioner.

¶19

In view of such circumstances, we find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed .

¶20

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 Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the

¶21

¶22

satisfaction of the arresting officer and the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation process and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 711 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of .

¶24

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶25

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar 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

Suranjit Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

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