Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Firoj Mallick vs C.R.M. 14343 Of 2 on 4 January, 2012
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 1.
2012..
C.R.M. 14193 of 2011.
In re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.12.2011 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 111 of 2009 dated 10.5.2009 under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/325/326/307/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
AND
In the matter of : Firoj Mallick. ... Petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar
Mr. M. H. Chowdhury ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Samrat Das . .. for the State.
And
C.R.M. 14343 of 2011.
In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.12.2001 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case no. 215 of 2008 dated 6.8.2008 under Sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
And In the matter of Firoj Mallick .. petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar Mr. M. H. Chowdhury ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Puspita Saha ... for the State.
Since the petitioner is common in both the bail applications being CRM 14193 of 2011 and CRM 14343 of 2011, the same are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common order.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case papers. So far as the first case is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is in custody for 84 days and although charge sheet has been submitted, the case has not been committed. In the second case, the petitioner is in custody for 50 days where also the charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that he is absolutely innocent and this is a case where the petitioner has been implicated out of political rivalry.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that in the first case, two persons were killed and one person was killed in the 2 second case. It is further submitted that there is another case pending against the petitioner, although in that case, he is on bail. Our attention has been drawn to the statement of the eye witnesses to show that the petitioner's participation in the commission of offence.
We have gone through the same. Considering the antecedent of the petitioner, in our opinion, this will not at all be proper to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected.
As it is submitted that there no chance of commencement of trial shortly because of the fact that several accused persons were absconding, we direct the learned trial court to consider, if any application is filed on behalf of the present accused, for splitting up of his case from the other accused and commence the trial in accordance the provision of law.
In such circumstances, learned court shall take necessary steps immediately and must proceed in terms of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) ( Asim Kumar Ray, J. )