Dismissed

Indrajit Sen @ Sen Indrajit v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC3 Feb 2023CRR/911/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full Bench disposed of a revisional application challenging arrest warrant issuance. The court directed the petitioner to surrender for bail consideration within four weeks, acknowledging his absence abroad prevented investigation participation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks to avail bail; otherwise coercive measures may be taken.

Indrajit Sen @ Sen Indrajit Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

03.2.2023 16 SB Ct. No.236

¶2

CRR 911 of 2011 CRAN 2 of 2011 CRAN 6 of 2013

¶3

In the matter of : Indrajit Sen @ Sen Indrajit

¶4

Mr. Bidyut Kr. Ray Ms. Sima Biswas … For the State

¶5

This revisional application challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) on 15^th January, 2011 in connection with Kasba Police Station case number 174(5) 10 dated 14.05.2010.

¶6

Brief fact of the case is that on 06.05.2009 marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 Sohini Sen (nee Paul) was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 25.10.2009. The opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial home and she filed an application before the competent court of law depicting herself as the legally married wife of the petitioner who has been subjected to torture in her matrimonial home. The petition of complaint was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Kasba Police Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Kasba Police Station case number 174(5) of 10 was registered on 14.5.2010. Police took up investigation and submitted a charge sheet against three accused persons on 30.06.2010 under Sections 498A/420/406/403/34 of the Indian Penal Code showing the petitioner as absconder. Learned Trial Court took cognizance of the case and was pleased to issue

¶7

warrant of arrest against the petitioner who was depicted as accused number 1. It is contended in the petition that learned Trial Court while passing the order impugned did not take into consideration that the petitioner was in the USA till 31.08.2011.

¶8

Considering the contention made by the petitioner in his application I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner though he did not join the investigation, to surrender to the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore 24 Parganas (South) within four weeks from date and in such event, learned Trial Court instead of taking any coercive measure shall consider his prayer for bail in the light of the fact that he was not in the country and as such he could not join the investigation, failing which, the learned Trial Court will be at liberty to take any coercive measure if there is no change in the circumstances in the meantime.

¶9

Accordingly the revisional application is disposed of along with application, if any.

¶10

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.

¶11

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Indrajit Sen @ Sen Indrajit v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajit Sen @ Sen Indrajit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Madhu@Ahamed Hossain Vs State of West Bengal

Ram Chandra Jaiswal Vs State of West Bengal

Kamal Ahmad Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Prashant Khaitan & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Sudhir Kumar Patodia Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kanika Lohar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.