Case: SK. Jinnar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal

1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No. 10553 of 2016 dated 17.01.2017, whereby his application for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. 3. The genesis of the case stems from a matrimonial dispute. The wife of the appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Burdwan alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A/109/420/406/506/34/120B of the IPC against the appellant and her in-laws. The complaint was registered as FIR No.549/16. She filed yet another application under Sections 4/12/18/19(8)/20/22/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant and her in-laws alleging physical and mental torture in G.R.No.2149/16. In the said case, appellant was released on bail by order dated 18.7.2016. The wife of the appellant filed another complaint against the appellant alleging offences under Sections 467/127A/468/471/384/386/120B of IPC as well as for the offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act, Information Technology Act and Emblem and Names Act, 1950. The complaint was registered as FIR 1165/2016 with Burdwan Police Station. The application filed by the appellant seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we are of the view that the complaint lodged by the wife of the appellant was only to wreak vengeance on the appellant. As noted above, the appellant had been granted anticipatory bail in the previous case for lack of prima facie evidence against the appellant. The appellant is a Journalist by profession running a monthly newspaper in West Bengal. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in rejecting application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we are of the view that the complaint lodged by the wife of the appellant was only to wreak vengeance on the appellant. As noted above, the appellant had been granted anticipatory bail in the previous case for lack of prima facie evidence against the appellant. The appellant is a Journalist by profession running a monthly newspaper in West Bengal. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in rejecting application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.