Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukur Ali Khan vs The State Of West Bengal on 13 November, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Subal Baidya, 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 Subal Baidya CRM No. 13457 of 2013 Sukur Ali Khan v.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee
Mr. Anindya Sundar Das .. for the petitioner
Mr. Manjit Singh,PP
Mr. S. S. Ali .. for the State
Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar .. for the de facto complainants
Heard on: November 13, 2013
Order on: November 13, 2013
Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The petitioner accused of offences under
ss.147/148/149/364/326/307/367/368/302/201/120B IPC, ss.25/27 Arms Act and s.9B Explosives Act and in custody from September 7, 2013 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.
The court below has refused bail on September 7, 2013 referring to the gravity of the offences.
Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be treated on equal footing as one Mrinmoy Das who was granted bail by this court on October 7, 2013 in CRM No.13229 of 2013. He has submitted that out of twenty-two accused in the first charge-sheet in which the petitioner was not named, seven have been granted bail; and that out of sixty-six in the second charge-sheet submitted on January 30, 2012 and in which the petitioner was named, sixty have been granted bail.
Mr. Public Prosecutor opposing bail and producing the case diary has submitted as follows. Though on merits the petitioner is entitled to be treated on same footing as Mrinmoy Das and thus to the equality benefit, he should not be granted bail, because after absconding from January 30, 2012 when the charge-sheet naming him was filed, he has surrendered before the court below only on September 7, 2013, when he found that accused facing similar allegations were granted bail by the court. Considering the petitioner's conduct, this court should refuse him bail.
2Mr. Majumder appearing for the de facto complainants has submitted as follows. The petitioner committing the heinous crime in which seven persons were taken away from a procession, brutally assaulted and ultimately killed is not entitled to bail for the simple reason that he has successfully fled from justice from January 30, 2012, when the charge-sheet was submitted, till January 7, 2013, when he surrendered for taking advantage of orders granting bail to accused facing similar allegations. Bail to the petitioner will give him an opportunity to flee from justice. The order of the Supreme Court concerning bail granted to the principal accused should be considered while deciding the question of bail to the petitioner.
It is not disputed that the petitioner is entitled to be treated on same footing as Mrinmoy Das who has been granted bail by this court on October 7, 2013 in CRM No.13229 of 2013. The question whether bail will give the petitioner an opportunity of absconding is definitely a relevant consideration. But it is to be decided keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case.
Simply because the petitioner has surrendered only on September 7, 2013, when the charge-sheet naming him had been submitted on January 30, 2012, he cannot be refused bail, if he is entitled to bail on merits; for refusal on this ground will amount to inflicting a punishment, - an act not within the scope of bail issue. The fact is relevant for determining the bail conditions, but not for refusing bail, especially when the petitioner has surrendered of his own accord.
An accused is entitled to decide his own course of action. Hence if he decides to await the fate of other accused's bail prayers, he cannot be refused bail, if he claims equality benefit. We are of the view that the petitioner should be granted bail. We do not find any reason to impose the restrictive conditions mentioned in the order of the Supreme Court relied on by the de facto complainants.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a `1,00,000 bond with four sureties (two local) of `25,000 each - all to the satisfaction of CJM, Purba Medinipur; and that if released, he shall report to the officer in charge of Nandigram police station three times in a week. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.) kc (Subal Baidya,J) 3