c/l.13 24.01.2025 p.k. C. R. M. (DB) No. 4325 of 2024 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 483 of the BNSS filed on December 12, 2024 in connection with Burtolla Police Station Case No. 112 of 2024 dated July 15, 2024 under Sections 498A/313/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: Supratim Roy. …petitioner. Mr. Ananda Bose, Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mrs. Subhosree Patel, Mr. Anirban Dutta, Mr. Neil Basu, Ms. Shruti Mukhopadhyay …for the petitioner. Ms. P. Bandopadhaya, Ms. Shyanti Poddar …for the de facto complainant. Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Ms. Chandreyi Dutta …for the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. The application for bail is canvassed on the ground that the allegation in the complaint and FIR are unacceptable and improbable. The petitioner was married to private respondent/wife for 13 years. 3. There are allegations that the petitioner, on being instigated by his mother, has inflicted physical and mental torture on the complainant/wife and her daughter. It is also alleged that the petitioner was having several extra marital relations and is currently is staying with one. 4. It is also alleged by the opposite party/wife that the petitioner has compelled her to abort her foetus 2 sometime in the year 2014. The complaint was filed on 15th July, 2024. The opposite party/wife is now staying the studio apartment standing in the name of the accused no. 2/sister of the petitioner. 5. There are several other allegations in the FIR which need not be considered at this stage. 6. Counsel for the State has produced the case diary. It appears that the charge sheet has been filed on 22nd November, 2024. The petitioner has also taken out proceedings for divorce against the opposite party/wife. The opposite party/wife, in turn, has taken out proceedings under D.V. Act. 7. It is further alleged by the opposite party/wife that the petitioner’s sister assaulted the opposite party/wife even while she was staying in the studio flat away from the matrimonial home. This happened while deactivation of CCTV cameras installed thereat under orders of a Single Bench of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioner and the opposite party/wife have been married for 13 years now. Since charge sheet has already been filed, the continued detention (now over 60 days) in the custody of the petitioner is no longer needed. It is not understood as to why the petitioner‘s prayer for bail was not considered by the first Court, when he surrendered after the charge sheet was filed. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two 3 sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM at Calcutta subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing until further order and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that the petitioner shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of the Tollygunge Police Station where the opposite party/wife resides. In the event the petitioner is desirous of leaving the city of Calcutta, he shall notify the Burtolla P.S. 10. The civil proceedings instituted by the petitioner and those instituted by the opposite party/wife under the D.V. Act shall continue in accordance with law. 11. In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court without justifiable cause, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail, in accordance with law, without further reference to this Court. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the application for bail being CRM (DB) 4325 of 20204 is disposed of. . (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)