Calcutta High Court Ananda Gopal Saha And Ors.-vs-State Of West Bengal on 2 November, 1995
Equivalent citations:1996 CriLJ 1784
Bench: R Bhattacharya, D Sircar
1. Let the matter be treated as on day’ s list.
2. The claim of the petitioners is pivoted on Section 438 of the CRPC craving for an anticipatory bail in connection with Bolpur Police Station Case No. 189 of 1995 dated 13-9-95, initiated under Section 498A/404B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are vocal in support of their claim for anticipatory bail that they are innocent of the allegations in regard to offences in question. But by the reason of their relationship with the husband of the deceased, they have been hauled up to cheer the ego of the investigating agency being oblivious of the fact that the petitioners are all living in a different place from the place of occurrence.
2-A. In amplifying the submission, Mr. Bose appearing for the petitioners has assiduously claimed that separate residence of the petitioners exposes the infirmity of the allegation. It has been magnified by the investigating agency as an engine of oppression.
3. To petter all doubt, Mr. Bose has made the separate residence as the spring-board to secure the anticipatory bail which has been studiously held back by the investigating agency, the principal object of which is to rope in the petitioners. The separate residence, according to Mr. Bose cannot constitute any offence of torture and dowry death. The investigation agency has conjured up a plan to bring the petitioners to its knees under the umbrella of the offence alleged to have been committed by them.
4. The claim has been refuted by the learned Counsel for the State on the ground that separate residence is not the meat of the matter, since the activities of the petitioners projected on the offences complained of. The investigating agency is not liable to investigate as to whether the petitioner lives elsewhere from the place of occurrence as the same is an alibi of the petitioners.
5. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that the separate residence may be considered in disposing of anticipatory bail. But it is not the lone ground where the allegations of torture and dowry death could automatically throttle the allegations. In isolation of materials disclosed in the CD, the separate residence as sword cannot be made use of to cut the claim of the investigating agency or to hold it as a shield. The court will take into consideration, the materials disclosed in the CD and the respective submissions made by the parties, but not to the exclusion of each other. Thus, the claim of Mr. Bose that separate residence constitutes the abortiveness of the torture and murder wafers thin.
6. There is another important point which has been canvassed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigating agency is not statutorily obliged to investigate the claim of the petitioner when made on an application either for bail or anticipatory bail. But, there is a fundamental distinction and difference between investigation and verification. Since the information in the CD is not replete with the evidence of the residence of the petitioners, the court in such circumstances is clothed with power to direct verification of the information filtering through the claim of the petitioners, the object of which is to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim. The word verification means :- To testify, To assert or prove to be true. To confirm, or test the truth or accuracy of. Therefore, in our view, the concept of verification does not come within the womb of investigation as meant by law. The claim of the PP is, therefore, anchored to the wrong shore.
7. The disclosure of materials prima facie suggest that it is a case of wife bashing installed into marital home where the lone claim of separate residence without anything more cannot be the yard- stick to accord the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the result, the application is rejected.