Supreme CourtDivision Bench

SK. Jinnar Ali vs State of West Bengal

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 9 August 2017 · Citation: 3 CRIMES(SC) 158

HON’BLE JUDGES
J. Chelameswar, J · S. Abdul Nazeer, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-120B>Section 120B</a>, <a href=1767-420>Section 420</a>, <a href=1767-34>Section 34</a>, <a href=1767-498A>Section 498A</a>, <a href=1767-506>Section 506</a>, <a href=1767-109>Section 109</a>, <a href=1767-406>Section 406</a> - Punishment of criminal conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Punishment for criminal ,intimidation - Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment - Punishment for Criminal breach of trust
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Crl.A. No 1379 of 2017 (Arising out of S L P (Crl ) No 1461 of 2017)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 473 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No. 10553 of 2016 dated 17.01.2017, whereby his application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected.

3.

The genesis of the case stems from a matrimonial dispute. The wife of the appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Burdwan alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A/109/420/406/506/34/120B of the IPC against the appellant and her in-laws. The complaint was registered as FIR No.549/16. She filed yet another application under Sections 4/12/18/19(8)/20/22/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant and her in-laws alleging physical and mental torture in G.R.No.2149/16. In the said case, appellant was released on bail by order dated 18.7.2016. The wife of the appellant filed another complaint against the appellant alleging offences under Sections 467/127A/468/471/384/386/120B of IPC as well as for the offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, Information Technology Act and Emblem and Names Act, 1950. The complaint was registered as FIR 1165/2016 with Burdwan Police Station. The application filed by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we are of the view that the complaint lodged by the wife of the appellant was only to wreak vengeance on the appellant. As noted above, the appellant had been granted anticipatory bail in the previous case for lack of prima facie evidence against the appellant. The appellant is a Journalist by profession running a monthly newspaper in West Bengal. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in rejecting application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed in part. The order passed by the High Court in CRM No.10553 of 2016 dated 17.1.2017 is set aside and the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant is allowed. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with FIR No.1165/16 dated 02.11.2016 registered at Burdwan Police Station, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of L 25,000/- along with two sureties of like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./SHO on the following conditions:

(i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer'' and

(iii) That the appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.