1

19.07.2017
s.das
712
W.P. 18685(W) of 2017

Sukumar Rajagopalan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal Ors.

Mr. Rajdeep Majumder,
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta
….. for the petitioner

Sk. Md. Galib,
Ms. Subhra Nag
…. for the State

Let affidavit-of-service filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

in Court today be kept with record.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of issuing notice

under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appearance

before the investigating agency on 12.06.2017 in connection with Lake

Town Police Station Case No. 75 of 2017 dated 23.05.2017 under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and added Sections 420/494 of the Indian

Penal Code, the petitioner was illegally arrested on 05.06.2017 and was

subsequently released on bail. It has been pleaded that the arrest is

illegal and contrary to the directions in Annesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. It is true that the arrest was effected after

notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued.

However, it has been recorded in the forwarding note that such extreme
2

measure was resorted to as there was apprehension that the petitioner

may go abroad and abscond as he possessed a passport. Such

apprehension in the factual matrix of the case cannot be said to be

unreasonable or absurd so as to compel me to come to a finding that his

arrest was an abuse of investigational powers.

It is trite law that an accused who has been enlarged on bail has a

duty to co-operate with investigation. Incorrect nomenclature to the

notice issued upon the petitioner during investigation does not erode the

jurisdiction of the investigating agency to call upon the accused to co-

operate with the process of investigation.

Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to

co-operate with investigation in accordance with law. I, however, observe

that the investigation shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner

and shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations

made in the writ application are deemed not to have been admitted by the

respondents.

There will be no order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to

the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary

formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3