Shyama Pada Ghosh & Anr vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2422 Cal

28.04.2022 Sl. 36 CRM (A) 1958 of 2022 Court No.29 suvayan In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of (Rejected) the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Gaighata P.S. Case No. 1075 of 2021 dated 18/11/2021 under Sections 498A/294/323/328/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

And

In the matter of: Shyama Pada Ghosh & Anr.

....petitioners.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Mr. G. Firdaus Ms. Smita Saha Sk. Saidullah Mr. Supriyo Majumdar ... for the petitioners.

Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Soumik Ganguli ...for the State.

Petitioners seek anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the

complaint was lodged with an unexplained delay. The petitioners

were falsely implicated. The petitioners are neighbors. They are

appears to be matrimonial disputes in which the petitioners were

wrongly implicated.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relies upon

a judgment and order dated February 26, 2019 passed in CRM

10429 of 2018 (Kingshuk Gupta vs. State of West Bengal) of the

co-ordinate Bench. He submits that the bar under Section 18 of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 does not preclude the Court from examining the

allegations in the First Information Report on its face value and

determining whether a prima facie case was made out or not.

According to him, in the facts of the present case, the petitioners

cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the Act of

1989.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the

attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary including

the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

There is a police complaint as against the petitioners. The

petitioners are named. In the police complaint, amongst others,

the de facto complainant states that the petitioners used

derogatory language with regard to the caste of her daughter at

public places including on the public road and a market place.

Kingshuk Gupta (Supra) notes that Section 18 of the Act

of 1989 does not preclude the Court from examining the

allegations in the First Information Report on its face value and

determining whether the prima facie case made out or not.

In the facts of the present case, the police complaint is

detailed. It narrates the involvement of the petitioners in the

incident. It also claims that the petitioners used derogatory

language with regard to the caste of the daughter of the de facto

complainant and uttered such words at public places.

In such circumstances, we cannot return a finding on the

basis of the police complaint that the prima facie case was not

made out as against the petitioners.

Consequently, the bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989

applies in the fact of the present case.

Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioners.

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 1958

of 2022, is rejected.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)