The Court dismissed an application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the private opposite parties. The bench held there was no post-bail misconduct and the initial order was not perverse.
Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail dismissed; the grant of bail to private opposite parties stands.
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.
26.08.2022 Serial no.30 Dd
CRM (DB) 2166 of 2022
In re : An Application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-And-
In the matter of : Rupsana Bibi
… …Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Nag,
Mr. Abhinav Rakshit, Advocates … … For the Petitioner
Mr. Suman Das Adhikary, Adv. … …For the opposite parties
Mr. Neguive Ahmed, ld. APP Ms. Ayantika Ray, Advocates … …For the State
Petitioner prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the jurisdictional Court by the order dated April 6, 2022.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the private opposite parties obstructed electricity connection. The petitioner was required to approach the writ Court. The writ Court passed an order granting electric connection. When the Electricity Company officials came to execute such order of the writ Court, an altercation took place. He refers to the nature of injury suffered by the husband of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner was also molested.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears for the State. The private opposite parties are represented.
2
By the order dated April 6, 2022, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail on the consideration that, the injury report does not suggest injury of serious nature. He returned a finding that the husband of the petitioner did not suffer a deep cut injury or a stab injury or sharp cut injury/incised injury. Such was the allegation in the first information report. There was no recovery of alleged theft materials. He returned a finding that there was no requirement of custodial interrogation of the private opposite parties.
The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. There is no allegation of post bail misconduct.
In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties.
CRM (DB) 2166 of 2022 is accordingly, dismissed .
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order granting anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties due to lack of serious injury evidence should be cancelled.
Whether the impugned order granting anticipatory bail is perverse or shows post-bail misconduct.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rupsana Bibi
Private opposite parties
Debangsu Basak
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
