Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Code Read With Sections 25/27 Of The Arms ... vs In Re: Zaherul Islam & Ors on 8 July, 2019
1 08.07.19
Sl. No.140 akd [PARTLY ALLOWED] C. R. M. 5845 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.07.2019 in connection with Chopra Police Station Case No. 186 of 2019 dated 11.03.2019 under Sections 341/323/326/307/379/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. (G.R. Case No. 667 of 2019) And In Re: Zaherul Islam & Ors.
... ... Petitioners Mr. Shaharayar Alam .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli .. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties. It is submitted that petitioner no.3 has been arrested in the meantime. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.3 namely, (3) Tazimul is dismissed as infructuous.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that co-accused namely, Abdul Rajjak @ Abdul Rajjaque has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court. It is further submitted that the petitioners stand on the same footing with the said co-accused.
Learned advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
We have considered the materials on record including the statements of witnesses and we note that petitioner nos.4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 & 18 are specially named by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the assailants of 2 the deceased. Hence, we are of the opinion that petitioner nos.4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 & 18 do not stand on the same footing with the co-accused namely, Abdul Rajjak @ Abdul Rajjaque who has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 & 18 herein.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused/petitioner nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14 & 18 namely, (4) Nousad Ali, (5) Alamgir, (6) Golam Yasin, (8) Azad Ali @ Ajad Ali, (11) Kaushar Ali, (14) Ujir Ali & (18) Najbul @ Najbul Haque is rejected.
However, keeping in mind the extent of complicity of the petitioner nos.1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 herein in the alleged crime and in view of the fact that they stand on the same footing with the co-accused namely, Abdul Rajjak @ Abdul Rajjaque who has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner nos.1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 is not necessary in the facts of the present case and they may be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 namely (1) Zaherul Islam, (2) Aziz Ahamed, (7) Saiful Islam @ Saiful Rahaman, (9) Pajir Hussain, (10) Anoyarul Haque, (12) Mansur Ali, (13) Minsar Ali, (15) Kaiyum Ali, (16) Usman Gani, (17) Sahadat Ali, (19) Awal, (20) Sk. Nur Hussain, (21) Khursed Alam, (22) Noor Islam, (23) Rafikul Md. (24) Ajgar Ali, (25) Mahabub Alam & (26) Raisul Azam, be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject 3 to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)