Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Md. Sulaiman Mistri & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2013

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Asim Kumar Ray, Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                           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 Asim Kumar Ray

                                           CRM No.10863 of 2013
                                         Md. Sulaiman Mistri & Anr.
                                                  v.
                                        The State of West Bengal

                    Mr. Arup C. Chatterjee
                    Mr. S.S. Ray           ....for the petitioners
                    Mr. Binoy Panda
                    Mr. S. Mahapatra        ... for the State

        Heard on: August 6, 2013
       Order on: August 6, 2013

             Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The two petitioners accused of offences under
     ss.364/364A/120B/34 IPC and in custody from March, 19, 2013 are seeking bail under
     s.439 CrPC.

             We have heard advocates for the petitioners and the State and have perused the
     case diary. Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, two contract
     labourers, have been implicated without any valid reason. He has prayed for bail saying
     that charge-sheet has already been submitted.            Advocate for the State has invited our
     attention to the s.164 statements of the defacto complainant, the wife of the victim, and of
     the victim himself. He has mentioned that bail prayer of the second petitioner was rejected
     by this court on two previous occasions.

             The prosecution case has been made very strong by the s.164 statements of the
     defacto complainant and the victim, which reveal how the two petitioners committed the
     offence of abduction for ransom.       The defacto complainant in her statement specifically
     named the first petitioner as the person making the phone call. The victim has specifically
     named both the petitioners as the persons abducting him, beating him repeatedly, and
     threatening to kill him unless the ransom was paid. In our opinion, this is not a case for
     bail, rather a case for the petitioners' custodial trial. Bail to the petitioners is likely to affect
     the general interest of the society and trial of the case.

             For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.
                ,




                                                                       (Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.)


kc                                                                         (Asim Kumar Ray,J.

2 kc (Asim Kumar Ray,J.)