SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prohibition Act vs In Re: Sri Pratik Agarwal Alias … on 11 February, 2020

1

11.02.2020
18

sdas
allowed

C.R.M. No. 1272 of 2020

In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
filed on 05.02.2020 in connection with Siliguri Women Police Station Case No. 06 of 2020 dated
26.01.2020 under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.

And
In Re: Sri Pratik Agarwal alias Pratik Agarwal (Tebriwal) Ors. ……… petitioners

Mr. Rajdeep Majumder
Mr. Pritam Roy
…for the petitioners

Ms. Sonali Bhar
…. for the State

Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debashis Sinha
Mr. Bibhasaditya Chakraborty
Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee
….. for the defacto complainant

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case

over a matrimonial dispute. It is further submitted that the instant

case is a product of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no. 1

and the defacto complainant/wife. It is also submitted that the

marriage took place in 2014 and the allegation of physical assault is out

and out false.

Learned senior Counsel appearing for the defacto

complainant/wife submits that his client was physically assaulted

resulting in her miscarriage. Notice has been issued to the nursing
2

home where the victim was admitted by the investigating agency for

collection of relevant documents.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

incident occurred in 2014 whereas F.I.R. was registered in 2020.

We have considered the rival submissions levelled on behalf of

the parties. F.I.R. was registered in 2020 whereas the allegation

relating to miscarriage was in 2014. With regard to the allegation of

physical assault in 2020, we have examined the relevant medical

documents. No significant injury is noted in the medical report.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that though

custodial interrogation for progress of investigation may not be

necessary, petitioners require to co-operate with the investigation in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners

shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- each,

with two registered sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of

the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down

under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on

further conditions that petitioner no. 1 shall meet the investigating

officer once in a week until further orders and they shall appear before

the investigating officer and hand over their passports, if any, within

fortnight from date. In the event they do not have passports, they shall
3

personally appear before the investigating officer and furnish affidavits

to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

Personal appearance of the investigating officer is noted and

dispensed with.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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