Allowed

MD Mehebub Alam@Mehebub Alam v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC6 Mar 2023CRM(A)/175/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Calcutta granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was accused of rape and other offences. The petitioner alleged a consensual relationship and denied forcible rape. The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, subject to conditions.

MD Mehebub Alam@Mehebub Alam Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri 06.03.2023. 32. as (Allowed).

¶2

C.R.M. (A) 175 of 2023

¶3

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Matigara P. S. Case No.25 of 2023 dated 11.01.2023 under Sections 448/325/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code and added Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

In the matter of : Md. Mehebub Alam @ Mehebub Alam. … Petitioner. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Mr. Asif Iqbal. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhit Sarkar, Mr. Chattu Roy. …..for the State.

¶5

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner there was a consensual relationship between the parties. As the petitioner was unwilling to continue with the relationship, he has been falsely implicated. Allegation of forcible rape is out and out false. On 7.1.2023 he was in Calcutta at his place of work i.e. R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. He prays for anticipatory bail.

¶6

Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the victim was induced to cohabit through deceit and subsequently forcibly raped.

¶7

¶8

We have considered the materials on record. Victim was a major lady at the time of free mixing. She was aware of the consequence of such association. Allegation of forcible rape on 7.1.2023 requires to be seen in the light of the continuing relationship and the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner.

¶9

Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the petitioner for progress of investigation is not necessary but petitioner requires to cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law.

¶10

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner viz., Md. Mehebub Alam @ Mehebub Alam shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the trial court and pray for regular bail within a period of four weeks from date and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a month until further orders.

¶11

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed

¶12

of.

¶13

(Subhendu Samanta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

¶14

MD Mehebub Alam@Mehebub Alam v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Mehebub Alam@Mehebub Alam 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

Surendra Kumar Mishra Vs the State of West Bengal

Avijit Bose Vs the State of West Bengal

Sushil Chakraborty Vs Juin Chatterjee and Anr.

Mongla Kisku@Manmohan Kisku Vs the State of West Bengal

Bhairab Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Bhagat Saren Abd Ors. Vs Tuni Hansda