[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Xxxx & Anr vs Unknown on 11 August, 2025
11.08.2025
Item No.34
Ct. No. 446
RP
Allowed
C.R.M.(A) 2759 of 2025
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in
connection with Airport Police Station Case No. 87 of 2025
dated 01.06.2025 under Sections 115(2)/74/351(2)/3(5) of
the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita pending before the Court of the
Learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Barrackpore, North
24 Parganas.
And
In the matter of : XXXX & Anr.
...... petitioners
Mr. Kallol Mondal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Krishan Ray,
Mr. Anamitra Banerjee
Mr. Akbar Laskar
....for the petitioners
Mr. Anwar Hossain
Mr. S. Baliwal
....for the State
1.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
2. Argument advanced on behalf of the learned senior
counsel that false and malicious case made out by the de
facto complainant against a septuagenarian person out of
her utter frustation and grudge against the judicial
system whereby her ill intention to mould the civil dispute
in criminal cases has been remained unsuccessful.
3. The genesis of this case lies upon a marital discord
followed by an order passed by a Division Bench of this
Court over a right of visitation to the father to his 7 year
2
old daughter. The matrimonial suit was filed for a decree
of divorce has dismissed against the husband and in
appeal preferred against the same a visitation order was
passed in favour of the husband which was not complied
with. In terms of the order dated 22.05.2025 the de
facto/mother was to handover the child to the petitioner
no.2 every Friday at 6 P.M. at the residence of the father
and to return on same day. This order was later modified
and specific direction was given to the mother that in case
of non-compliance the Court shall consider handing over
the custody of the minor to the appellant. Since the
husband was preparing to take appropriate step for non-
compliance with such direction the de facto lodged the
compliant with a concocted story on 1.6.2025. A
coordinate Bench of this Court allowed an application
under Section 483 of BNSS and the said petitioner spent
24 days behind the bar.
4. On perusal of the said order it reveals that the de facto
complainant pressed that the allegation made in the heat
of the moment and she had no intention to put her in-
laws and husband behind the bar.
5. In such backdrop the present petitioner, being the
grandmother, a septuagenarian lady, and the uncle aged
about 66 years have come before this Court for protection
3
under Section 482 of BNSS since there is ample
apprehension of arrest.
6. The prosecution raises no such objection.
7. Heard the submissions of the learned defence counsel,
prosecution and de facto complainant. Perused the
content of the complaint which gives the description of
the incident and primarily shows the circumstances and
the nature of allegation levelled. On consideration of the
statements recorded under Section 180 of BNSS of the
various witnesses and the statement made under Section
183 of BNSS by the victim child and going through the
order, which in no way can be said to have any
incriminating substance and direction passed by the
Appellate Court as well as the coordinate Bench of this
Court allowing the prayers under 483 BNSS this Court is
inclined to extend the benefit of Section 482 of BNSS in
favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on
bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) 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 482(2) of the BNSS and in case
4
of violation of any of such provision the prosecution will
be at liberty to pray for cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted without further reference to this Court.
10. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus,
disposed of as allowed.
(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)
[ad_2]
Source link