SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

An Application For Anticipatory … vs 1. Imran Sardar on 20 July, 2017


Sl No. 998.
Allowed C.R.M. 5512 of 2017

In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure presented on 14.06.2017.

In the matter of: 1. Imran Sardar,

2. Soharab Sardar. … petitioners.

Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu,
Mr. Rahul Haldar. … for the petitioners.

Abhisekh Sinha. … for the State.

Mr. Biswajit Hazra. … for the de-facto complainant.

Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Basirhat Police Station
F.I.R. No. 1343/16 dated 07.11.2016 under Sections 498A/406/376/511/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners (husband and brother-in-law of the de-
facto complainant) have applied for anticipatory bail.

We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
in the case diary.

Mr. Hazra, learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant
submits that that the inter se disputes between the parties has since been settled
and she has resumed cohabitation with the petitioner no. 1.

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the State objects to the
maintainability of this application by submitting that this is the second
application for anticipatory bail after rejection of the earlier application by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court without there being any substantial change of

Reacting to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Basu, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners submits that the reason as to why the petitioners
have chosen to approach this Court a second time is because of an affidavit filed
by the de-facto complainant (at pages 15 and 16 of this application) stating that

the inter se disputes between the parties has been settled and this ought to be
considered as change of circumstances warranting grant of relief as prayed for.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the
materials in the case diary, we are of the considered opinion that custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for effective and meaningful
investigation of the F.I.R. and that they are entitled to direction as prayed for in
this application.

C.R.M. 5512 of 2017 stands allowed with the direction that in the event of
the petitioners’ arrest, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each,
one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also
subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.

( Dipankar Datta, J.)

( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2023 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation