AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is a dispute between the parties over commercial matters and they have been falsely implicated in
the instant case. Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned lawyer appearing for the defacto
complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
We have considered the materials on record particularly the injury reports as well as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Although the name of petitioner nos.1 and 2 transpired in the injury report, however, the assault on the head of the victim was by petitioner no.1 as
transpiring from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Hence, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner no.1, namely, Goutam Sikder @ Gautam Shikdar. His prayer for anticipatory bail
stands, accordingly, rejected. However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of petitioner nos.2 and 3 in the alleged offence, we are of the opinion
that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 The application for anticipatory bail is partly allowed. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after
complying with all necessary legal formalities.