Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Maylal Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 July, 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 Debangsu Basak CRM No.8385 of 2014 Inatul Mondal, Jamiruddin Mondal @ Jamir Mondal, Tajrul Sk., Badesh Mondal, Nasiruddin Mondal @ Nasirul Mondal, Madan Mondal, Maylal Mondal, Badal Mondal & Chadek Mondal v.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Milon Mukherjee
Mr. Asraf Mandal ...for the petitioners.
Mr. Navanil De ...for the State.
Heard on: July 23, 2014.
Order on: July 23, 2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The nine petitioners in the CRM saying that they are
apprehending arrest in connection with Hogalberia P.S. Case No.77 of 2014 dated April 14, 2014 under ss.147/148/149/323/325/326/307/436/353/333/186/506 IPC, ss.25/27 Arms Act and s.9B Explosives Act are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The case was registered by the police suo motu on April 14, 2014 against fifteen and two hundred others. On the information of the same incident by one Ranjit Case No.88 was registered on April 26, 2014 against fifteen. In none of the cases the petitioners were named. No material of Case No.77 implicates them. Case No.88 is redundant. It is to merge with Case No.77. No material of Case No.88, even if implicates any of the petitioners, can be used for refusing them anticipatory bail in Case No.77. In Case No.88 there is no injury report and seizure list; they are in Case No.77. They cannot be used for deciding the anticipatory bail prayer in Case No.88. When the suo motu case referred to two hundred others, there is every likelihood of false implication for political reasons.2
Mr. De appearing for the State has produced the case diary of Case No.77 and referred to the injury reports at pp.56, 57, 58 and 93, the seizure lists showing seizure of firearms, bombs, etc. at pp.6, 17, 45 and 98 and the statements of the witnesses at pp.64-68 and 125-127.
Since over the same incident Case No.88 was registered and thirteen persons are seeking anticipatory bail therein by filing another CRM and we have heard both the CRMs together, we have also perused the case diary of Case No.88 produced by Mr. Ahmed appearing for the State in the other CRM. The nine petitioners of this CRM are also the petitioners in the other CRM.
In the case diary of Case No.88 the statements of injured and victims are there and our attention has been drawn to them. Some of the statements are at pp.9, 10, 11 and 12 of the case diary. These statements are of the eyewitnesses and victims, and they have named all the petitioners in the other CRM as among the persons actually committing the offences.
The accusations are that on the occasion of Charak Puja and Gajon Mela people belonging to a particular community gathering to celebrate the occasion were attacked by the people of another community with bombs, firearms and other deadly weapons; and and that the attackers caused injuries including bullet injuries to several and destroyed properties by fire. It is important to note that the police were also present at the time the incident happened.
After examining the worth of the contentions, the nature and gravity of the offences and the case diary materials, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Nothing herein is to affect the petitioners' regular bail prayer separately on merits. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)
S.R. (Debangsu Basak, J.)