Allowed

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

Calcutta HC5 Aug 2021CRM/782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioners facing charges of criminal trespass and causing hurt. Considering the inconclusive nature of the injury and the fact that coaccused were already on bail, the Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount, one local, subject to appearing weekly.

Ichhab Sekh @ Rafikul Sekh and Ors. Vs the State of West… — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

05.08.2021

¶2

Court No.28 Item No.15 (ALLOWED)

¶3

Saswata

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶5

(Via Video Conference)

¶6

CRM 782 of 2021

¶7

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Boxirhat Police Station Case No. 76 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021 under Sections 341/323/324/325/326/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case no. 242 of 2021).;

¶8

And

¶9

In the matter of : Ichhab Sekh @ Rafikul Sekh & Ors.

¶10

…Petitioners

¶11

Ms. Arpita Saha Mr. Hillol Saha Podder

¶12

…For the Petitioners

¶13

Mr. Nilay Chakraborty Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee

¶14

...For the State.

¶15

The Advocate-on-record of the petitioners 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 Boxirhat Police Station Case No. 76 of 2021 under Sections 341/323/324/325/326/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case no. 242 of 2021), the petitioners have filed the instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 of the instant petition were arrested by the Investigating Officer and later on released by the Trial Court on bail. She, therefore, does not press the application for these petitioners.

¶18

She moves the application for petitioner nos. 1 and 3. It is submitted that there is no active role played by these petitioners to the commission of an offence and the injury does not support the commission of such offence.

¶19

The State opposes the prayer for bail.

¶20

Our attention is drawn to the medical examination report, wherefrom, it appears that the injury was caused with a plastic chair and the doctor could not give a firm opinion whether it is grievous or not. Since two of the coaccused have been enlarged on bail and the investigation is still going on, we do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is at all

¶21

¶22

necessary and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is, thus, allowed .

¶23

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner nos. 1 and 3, namely, Ichhab Sekh @ Rafikul Sekh and Najimuddin Sekh, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and they shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week or as and when called for and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in making the investigation and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 782 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of .

¶25

(Harish Tandon, J.)

¶26

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ichhab Sekh @ Rafikul Sekh and Ors. v. the 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

Kiran Chandra Haldar @ Kiran Haldar Vs State of West Bengal