The Calcutta High Court in the case Rubi Khatun Versus the State of West Bengal and Ors observed and has extended the police protection which is granted to the family of an Indian National Congress worker who was allegedly killed by members and workers of the ruling political dispensation.
The single bench headed by Justice Jay Sengupta in the case observed wherein the plea is moved by the slain worker’s wife that the local police authorities to ensure the safety of the petitioner, upon noting from mobile tower location records that she was being threatened by the accused to withdraw her complaint.
The court in the case observed that they are roaming around freely and threatening the petitioner to withdraw her complaint and even after the directions are passed by the said court, the miscreants continue to do such mischief. The [mobile] tower locations of the respective accused would bear out the same. The police in the case shall keep a sharp vigil at the locale and ensure that no breach of peace takes place and no harm is done to the petitioner. The police picket consisting of two police personnel one of whom is armed, as placed in front of the house of the petitioner’s house by the local police shall continue for a period of 3 months.
It has been submitted by the petitioner before the court that the private respondents, being members of the ruling party had attacked her husband, who succumbed to his injuries.
It was also argued before the court that the investigation was not being done properly and that the accused had not yet been arrested.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted before the court that some of the accused were granted anticipatory bail, while some were granted regular bail, with some anticipatory bail applications pending.
It was submitted by the State before the court that a thorough investigation was ongoing and that several accused had been arrested.
The court while considering the facts ad circumstances of the case observed and has directed the police to keep a tight vigil on the area, and to ensure that no harm came to the petitioner, or no breach of peace took place. Accordingly, the court disposed of the plea.
