Biswajit Adhikary vs State

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within

one month of resumption of normal functioning of the court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video

conference.

The application, being CRAN No. 3423 of 2020, is disposed of. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the

instant case.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner attempted to

ravish the victim girl.

We have considered the materials on record. We find that the allegation of physical assault is not supported by the medical records. In view of the

aforesaid fact, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. However, movement of the petitioner be

restricted to instill confidence in the mind of the de facto complainant.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like

amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that while on bail, he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri Women's Police Station until further orders,

except for the purpose of investigation and/or for attending Court proceedings and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the

Investigating Agency as well as the Court below and shall meet the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station once a week until further

orders.

This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.