Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vishwajeet Kumar Jha & Others vs Unknown on 1 August, 2025
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
01.08.2025
Court No.28
Item No.47
ssi
CRM (A) 2404 of 2025
In Re: – An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Banshdroni
PS Case No.355 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025 under Sections
417/376/377/493/354/354B/323/341/385/386/420/506(II)/
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of: Vishwajeet Kumar Jha & others.
….Applicants/Petitioners.
Mr. Subhabrata Chowdhury
…for the petitioners
Ms. Nandini Chatterjee
…for the de facto
Ms. Amita Gour, Sr. Govt. Counsel
Mr. Debarshi Brahma
..for the State
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as
follows. The petitioner no.1 and the de facto complainant had been
living together for quite some time. They are both employees in a
bank. After the relationship soured, the de facto complainant decided
to make false allegations as in the present complaint.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant
strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that
not only has been sexually exploited, she has also been made to give
moneys to the relatives of the petitioner no.1 in lieu of dowry.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail. She refers to the statement of the victim
recorded before the learned Magistrate as also statement of another
victim making similar allegations of cheating against the petitioner
no.1.
2
It appears that the petitioner no.1 and the de facto complainant
are bank employees and had been living together at different places
for considerable length of time. The FIR also reflects the grievance of
the de facto complainant that the petitioner no.1 was thinking of
marrying a third person.
Considering the above, the fact that the couple had staying
together for considerable length of time and the materials available in
the case diary, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is required in this case and I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners
is allowed.
In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail
upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like
amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further
conditions that the petitioners shall not threaten or intimidate
witnesses and shall co-operate with investigation. The petitioner no. 1
shall meet the I.O. twice a week till submission of report in final form.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)