Sanaul Sk @ Senaul Hoque vs. The State Of West Bengal
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
22 Jan 2024
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
SECTION II-B
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) ....................................
COURT NO.4
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-04-2022 in CRM(A) No.1304/2022 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
SANAUL SK @ SENAUL HOQUE
Petitioner(s)
Respondent(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
No.13294/2024-CONDONATION FILING $(IA)$ $\mathsf{OF}$ DELAY IN and $TA$ No.13296/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.13295/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS)
Date: 22-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Amitesh Chandra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Reetu Saipawar, Adv. For M/S. Acm Legal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following $0 R D E R$
Delay condoned. 1.
$\mathbf{2}$ The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.632/2019. registered under Section 498A, 376, 323, 379, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station English Bazar, District Malda, West Bengal.
Court declined anticipatory bail 3. The High to the petitioner on 07.04.2022. During the course of hearing, it is stated that the petitioner went to Dubai and has recently returned. It appears to us that the proceedings to declare the petitioner as Signame New Offender have been already initiated and the victim 🕍 s² made a statement against him under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Takina into consideration $a11$ 4. the attending circumstances, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Trial Court and, thereafter, applies for regular bail, let such petition be heard expeditiously as per its own merit without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order or by this Court hereinabove.
7. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)