Babita Nandi Vs

This application has been moved by the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 334 of 2019 dated 13.08.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/272/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 63/65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and added Sections 51/52/56/63 of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

By an order dated 28.08.2019 we had rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner assigning reason for rejection.

Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there has been some change of circumstances under which his client has been advised to file this application for anticipatory bail for the second time.

In the order of rejection, we held that there was allegation against the petitioner causing adulteration of edible mustard oil and that, in such commission of adulteration petitioner's role could not be ruled out.

Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate has drawn our attention to an order dated 30th September, 2019 which reflects about a chemical report and this Hon'ble Court finding that there was material before it to show that seized oil was unfit for human consumption only, allowed the application for bail of Bapan Bhattacharya & ors., the other co-accused persons in C.R.M.8245 of 2019.

Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate has also drawn our attention to an order dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly in G.R.959 of 2019, who on perusal of the Case Diary, held that the disputed mustard oil seized from the petitioner's custody was substandard in nature and allowed the prayer for bail of the accused Goutam Kumar Nandi who is also a co-accused in this case and husband of the prime accused (the present petitioner).

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate led by learned advocate, Mr. Saibal Bapuli appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that custodial interrogation is necessary but from the opinion in the report of chemical analyst contained at pages 127, 128, 129 to 132 being marked Exbt.A1 to F1 reflects that the mustard oil seized by the investigating officer appears to be substandard in nature.

Although, when the initial order was passed this report of chemical analyst was not on record and was not for our consideration at that time.

Mr. Bapuli, learned advocate submits that even despite such report of chemical analyst there has been no change in the circumstances which we do not agree.

Having considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and the State and on perusal of the Case Diary, we deem it appropriate to hold that there is no need of custodial interrogation of the petitioner who is said to be suffering for a long time from cancer. Since we find that other co-accused persons have already been granted bail as indicated above and the petitioner's husband another co-accused has also been granted anticipatory bail, considering the report of the chemical analyst and that edible mustard oil has already been seized and further that the investigation has progressed substantially by this time, we are inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and shall be subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above, C.R.M. No.10634 of 2019 stands disposed of.

A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.