Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ratna Konai & Anr vs Unknown on 4 October, 2021
04.10.2021
Serial no. 56
Aloke
(Through Video Conference)
CRM 3474 of 2021
In re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.04.2021 in connection with
Naihati Police Station Case No. 355 of 2020 dated 16.08.2020 under
Sections 498A/304b/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
-And-
In the matter of: Ratna Konai & Anr.
... Petitioners
Mr. Kaustav Das, Advocate
... ... For the Petitioners
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate
Mr. Avik Ghatak, Advocate
... ... For the State
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that
on the previous occasion, the application for grant of anticipatory
bail was not pressed on behalf of the petitioners on the erroneous
ground that there existed an order to proclamation of arrest. He
relies upon the order dated February 18, 2019 passed in CRM
1816 of 2019 (In re: Rajib Ghosh & Ors.), the judgment reported
in (2019) C Cr. LR (Cal) 423 (In re: Saidul Islam Mondal @ Saidul
Islam) and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CRM 13588
of 2013 (In re: Sambhu Halder) in support of the contention that
where proclamation of arrest was issued by the trial court without
being satisfied whether warrant of arrest was served on the
accused or the accused dodged service, the same does not impeach
upon the right of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
State is represented.
Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the
attention of the Court to the contents of the case diary. He submits
that the husband is on bail. Police submitted charge-sheet. He also
submits that there is warrant of arrest issued by the jurisdictional
court against the petitioners.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners draws the
attention of the Court to the orders of the jurisdictional court. He
submits that the perquisite for issuance of a proclamation of arrest
was not complied with. The order is a non-speaking order.
The police concluded investigation and submitted charge-
sheet. The principal accused being the husband was granted bail
by the jurisdictional court. Proclamation of arrest was prayed for
and allowed by the jurisdictional court on November 4, 2020
against the petitioners. The order dated November 4, 2020 of the
jurisdictional court is non-speaking.
In view of the ratio laid down in Saidul Islam Mondal @
Saidul Islam (supra), Rajib Ghosh & Ors. (supra) and Sambhu
Halder (supra), we are of the view that the existence of the order
dated November 4, 2020 directing issuance of proclamation of
arrest against the petitioners is no impediment of granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioners as such order stands vitiated. It
is non-speaking.
Considering that the police submitted charge-sheet and
that the husband of the victim is on bail, we are inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the
petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, 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 the petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional
court and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date and
with a further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the
jurisdictional court on every date fixed for hearing.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
CRM 3474 of 2021 is disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
