Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aynul Haque Molla & Ors vs Unknown on 28 August, 2014
Author: Sudip Ahluwalia
Bench: Sudip Ahluwalia
1 28/08/2014(538)
(Ct. no. 11) ARDR CRM 15214 of 2013 + CRM 599 of 2014 Re : CRM 15214 of 2013 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12th November, 2013 in connection with Bharatpur P.S. Case no. 133 of 2013 dated 21/7/2013 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 3-4 E. S. Act.
And In the matter of: Aynul Haque Molla & Ors.
...Petitioners.
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sonali Das, ...for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. K. Dutta, Mr. S. Roy, ...for the State.
Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Amar Krishna Saha, ...for the petitioners in CRM 599 of 2014. ALLOWED Heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. Learned senior Advocate of the petitioners submits that due to internal group rivalry the alleged incident took place and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the criminal case out of grudge. Learned senior Advocate for the petitioners further submits that out of forty-two persons, thirty-four persons have already been granted anticipatory bail.
Considering the materials in the case diary produced before us and also considering the fact that due to internal group rivalry alleged incident took place and out of forty-two accused persons, thirty-four have already been granted anticipatory bail, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. There is also no apprehension of abscondence of the petitioners.
We are, therefore, inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.
Re : CRM 599 of 2014 In the matter of: Nurul Asmar ...Petitioner.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for cancellation of the bail granted earlier by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that same was granted without considering the proper materials and also not furnishing adequate reasons.
Having heard the learned Advocate of the respective parties and on examination of the relevant materials available before us and also considering the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for cancellation of the bail of the opposite parties at this stage especially when the opposite parties have complied with the specific directions passed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) < (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)