Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk.Bulbul vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 April, 2014
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1 In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.4831 of 2014 Sk.Jiyaul Rahaman, Sk.Amed @ Sk.Ahmed, Johir Sk. @ Bulbul @ Sk.Bulbul, Gorai Sk. @ Pucha & Tambu Sk.
v.
The State of West Bengal Mr.Prabir Mitra Mr.Achin Jana Mr.Suman Chakraborty .. for the petitioners.
Mr.Ranabir Roychowdhury .. for the State.
Heard on: 03.04.2014.
Order on: 03.04.2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.- The five petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.251 of 2014 dated February 26, 2014 under ss.379/325/506/341 IPC and ss.25/27 Arms Act are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The documents at pp.11 and 12 of the CRM will show that a company is the owner of the lands concerning which the de facto complainant, a Panchayat member of the ruling political party, made allegations that the petitioners, some anti-social elements, were unauthorisedly erecting a boundary wall. The boundary wall was being 2 erected lawfully. The de facto complainant raised protest for political reasons and without any authority. Targeting the petitioners the de facto complainant lodged the false case for extraneous reasons.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary that contains a copy of the information of the de facto complainant leading to the registration of the FIR.
The de facto complainant has stated that he is a member of the Panchayat formed by the ruling political party, and that he with his associates went to the place where the boundary wall was being erected for raising protest. These facts support the case of the petitioners that the de facto complainant interfered in the matter for political and other extraneous reasons.
After considering all facts, we are of the view that the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail. Our prima facie opinion is that the de facto complainant interfering in the matter unauthorisedly for achieving his political and personal goals calculatedly created the trouble.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that in the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with the case, they shall be released on bail on a Rs.2000 bond (for each) with two sureties of like amounts (for each) and other usual conditions to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) sm.