Abhishek Sengupta vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4922 Cal

   50
20.09.2021

rrc

CRR 1871 of 2021 In re : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the matter of : Abhishek Sengupta ..... petitioner Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee Mr. Francis Samson Correa Ms. Kiron Kumari Mahato ....For the petitioner

Mr. Rana Mukhopadhyay Md. Kutub Uddin ....For the State

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned

Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with

Jorabagan Police Station Case No. 45/21 under Sections

498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections

3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

While granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the

learned Judge imposed the conditions that the petitioner should

come to Kolkata within 21 days from date of passing of the order

and, thereafter, he should remain in Kolkata for a period of three

months and during that period, the petitioner should meet the

investigating officer of the case thrice a week.

The petitioner, by a subsequent application, prayed for

modification of the said order. The learned Judge in the Court

below, however, found that the prayer of the petitioner was devoid

of any merit and accordingly, rejected the same.

Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is in employment in

Singapore and in this pandemic situation, his employer is not

allowing the petitioner to leave the country. If the petitioner

insists on leaving Singapore, the petitioner may lose his job.

Mr. Mukherjee places reliance on a judgment reported at

(2020) 10 SCC 77 (Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another) to suggest that while granting a bail

to an accused, no condition should be imposed which will stand

in the way of his right to employment.

Mr. Mukherjee, however, specifically gives an undertaking

before this Court being instructed by his client that the petitioner

is willing to cooperate with the investigation and if the

investigating officer wants to interrogate the petitioner, will make

himself available through video conference as and when required

by the investigating agency. Further undertaking is given by Mr.

Mukherjee that the petitioner will be in Kolkata from January,

2022 to March, 2022 and he is ready and willing to meet the

investigating officer during that period, as directed by the learned

Judge in his order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In view of the specific undertaking given by Mr. Mukherjee on

behalf of his client, the condition imposed by the learned Sessions

Judge dated August 27, 2021, is modified in the line of

undertaking as recorded above.

The petitioner will provide the investigating agency the

particulars of his present employment, address, contact number,

and e-mail ID within seven days from date so that the

investigating agency can establish contact with the petitioner for

the purpose of investigation.

If the investigating agency finds that the petitioner is not

cooperating with the investigation in terms of his aforesaid

undertaking, the investigating agency will be at liberty to bring

the said fact to the notice of the learned Judge in the Court below

and the learned Judge, upon consideration of such fact, will be at

liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without any making

reference to this Court.

The application being CRR 1871 of 2021 is disposed of.

All parties shall act upon the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)