Judgment · High Court

Mr. Snehansu Majumder Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharyya Ms. Srilekha Chattopadhyay …for the petitioners ..for the State Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The father of the petitioner no.2 ran a grocery shop in the village. The de facto complainant husband used to purchase goods on credit. When he was asked to make payment, an altercation ensued. The petitioners’ father and mother were granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the statements of witnesses including that of the victim and the injury report. She submits that there was a fracture injury caused on a victim. It appears from the injury report at page 21 of the case diary that the victim took the name of Jinnat Sk as the main assailant. In view of the nature of allegations and alleged roles ascribed to the petitioners, while I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2, Raja Sk., I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1, Jinnat Sk @ Jinnat Ali Sekh. 2 In view thereof, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1 is rejected. In the event of arrest, the petitioner no.2 shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, 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 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further conditions that the petitioner no.2 shall not try to influence the witnesses or threaten them, shall co-operate with investigation and shall meet the I.O. once a week till submission of report in final form. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Jay Sengupta, J.)