A single judge of the Calcutta High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC regarding offences under Sections 448/417/376 IPC. The Bench held that strong incriminating materials existed against the applicant, investigation was incomplete, and bail could not be granted.
The application for anticipatory bail is 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.
CRM No.6318 of 2021 Via video conference
13.01.22 (S.R.) Sl.292 Ct.32
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Bhutni Police Station Case No.130 of 2021 dated 19/08/2021 under Sections 448/417/376 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case No.4392 of 2021);
And
In re: Bapi Ghosh … petitioner.
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Mukherjee …for the petitioner. Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, Ld. Addl. P.P. Mrs. Manashi Roy … for the State.
Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. There was a love relationship between the parties. The victim lady is an adult and her relationship with the petitioner was consensual in nature. The complaint had been lodged about 10 days after the alleged incident and as such, the possibility of exaggerated account of the incident cannot be ruled out. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation is not warranted.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and draws our attention to the statement of the victim lady, as recorded under Section 164 of the Code, medical report and several other documents in the case diary. He further submits that investigation is still in progress and the victim lady had also been threatened by the petitioner and to that effect a complaint was also lodged by the victim lady, which was registered as FIR No.161 of 2021, dated 23rd September, 2021.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials in the case diary including the statement
2
of the victim lady, as recorded under Section 164 of the Code.
Prima facie, we find strong incriminating materials against the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour, more so when investigation is not yet complete.
The application for anticipatory bail being CRM No.6318 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted in a case involving Sections 448/417/376 IPC where investigation is incomplete and sufficient material exists.
Whether the nature of the offence and strength of incriminating materials warrant a refusal of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bapi Ghosh
The State
Md. Nizamuddin
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
