Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re:- Sucharan Maghi @ Majhi @ Jung on 13 February, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 27 13.02.2017
sm Rejected CRM No.626 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.01.2017 in connection with Uluberia Police Station Case No.479 of 2016 dated 07.08.2016 under section 394 and adding sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re:- Sucharan Maghi @ Majhi @ Jung ..... Petitioner.
Ms.Manasi Roy ... for the petitioner
Ms.Amrita Gaur... for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his client is in custody for a period of about 183 days and the co-accused, Kamal Acharjee, similarly situated was granted bail by this Bench in connection with CRM No.10691 of 2016.
Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned advocate for the State submits that this is a case of dacoity at night on the road. She further disputes that the present petitioner is standing on the same footing with the co-accused, who has been granted bail by this Bench.
2
She further points out that the he is the person, who let-out the vehicle with the help of which the robbery was committed and the present petitioner is the person, who actually committed the crime and he has been identified in TI Parade and the stolen articles were recovered from his possession. TI Parade sheet is at page 54 and the seizure lists are at pages 41 and 42 of the case diary.
Now, considering the fact as above and the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 41 13.02.2017 sm Allowed CRM No.685 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.01.2017 in connection with Manikchak Police Station Case No.130 of 2013 dated 08.06.2013 under section 448/323/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read 3 with sections 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act and sections 3&4 of the Explosive Substances Act .
And In Re:- Sudhir Mahato .. Petitioner.
Mr.Angshuman Chakraborty... for the petitioner Mr.Arindam Sen ... for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his client is in custody for about 235 days.
It is true that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Bench.
Now, considering the length of detention of the petitioner in custody and when no case is made out from the side of the State that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed.
Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further condition that after release, the petitioner 4 shall meet the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station thrice in a week until further order.
Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)