logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Cal HC 853 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
Case No : C.R.M.(A) No. 4050 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
Parties : Nurul Aras & Another Versus Sharequl Haque
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: -------- For the Respondent: ------
Date of Judgment : 22-12-2025
Head Note :-
Anticipatory Bail - Section 3(1)(r), Section 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - In the instant case, the alleged abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in public view - Therefore, held, the provisions of the special Act would not be prima facie attracted - Although the Application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable, since the other offences were bailable, the Petitioner was granted liberty to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from date -  Direction made that the Petitioner shall not be arrested for such period of four weeks.
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 31(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Section 31(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

2. Catch Words:
- anticipatory bail
- prima facie
- bailable
- telephone abuse

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the alleged telephone abuses do not fall within Sections 31(r) and 31(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that the other charges are bailable. The State opposed the bail, relying on the case diary and witness statements. The court observed that the telephone abuses are not prima facie covered by the special Act, rendering the anticipatory bail application untenable. However, since the remaining allegations are bailable, the court permitted the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail within four weeks, ensuring he would not be arrested during that period. The anticipatory bail application was therefore disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable as there is no prima facie case made out in respect of Section 31(r) and 31(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocity Act. It has been alleged in the FIR that abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in public view. The other provisions mentioned in the FIR are bailable.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the case diary, including on the statements of witnesses.

3. Considering the fact that the alleged abuses were hurled over the telephone and not in public view, the provisions of the special Act would not be prima facie attracted and consequently the application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable.

4. However, this is a peculiar case where the other allegations are bailable.

5. Considering the above, the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from date. If such an application for bail is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not be arrested for such period of four weeks.

6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
 
  CDJLawJournal