0

The genesis of the instant complaint originates on an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Calcutta High Court

Petitioner no. 1 had already extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the instant case, and so no further allegation of threat was made. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Tandon and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rabindranath Samanta in the matter of  Md. Abdul Hadi @ Abdul Hadi & Anr. Vs. The State [CRM 6937 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were associated with an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail in connection with the English Bazaar Police station case. The petitioners were arrested under Sections 195A of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the English Bazaar Police Station and thus filed for anticipatory bail. The Counsel for the petitioner stated that in order to fulfil the motive to keep the petitioners behind the bar, this case was initiated even after petitioner no. 1 had already been extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case. The Counsel also stated that the police tried to arrest the petitioners even if the statements regarding them were false. 

The Counsel representing the state opposed the bail pray and contended that the said complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant because the petitioners threatened the victim to withdraw the case filed against the petitioner no. 1. It was revealed that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner alleging rape on a false promise to marry. 

After considering all the facts and submissions The Hon’ble Court ruled out “ Since the petitioner no. 1 has already been extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the aforesaid case and no further allegation of threat has been made, we do not think this is a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, is necessary. However, to avoid any further allegation to see the light of the day, we intend to put certain conditions while granting anticipatory bail… The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed… The application for anticipatory bail being CRM 6937 of 2021 is thus disposed of.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat