Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs An Application For Bail Under Section ... on 3 April, 2012

Author: Ashim Kumar Roy

Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy

                                                                     1

3-04-12

C.R.M. No. 5375 of 2012 With C.R.M. No. 5376 of 2012 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27th March, 2012 in connection with Maynaguri P.S. Case No. 18 of 1984 dated 27-09-1984 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27th March, 2012 in connection with Maynaguri P.S. Case No. 19 of 1984 dated 27-09-1984 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                       And

          In re : Anitya Kumar Roy.                                  ...           Petitioner.

          Ms. Ranjana Talapatra,
          Mr. Anirban Banerjee.              ... for the petitioner.
          Ms. Rituparna De.                  ... for the State
                                             (in CRM No. 5375/2012)

          Mr. Syed Shamsher Ali.             ... for the State
                                             (in CRM No. 5376/2012)

Both these matters are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order, as the petitioner is same.

The petitioner happens to be the Sub-PostMaster at the relevant time attached to Helapakri Branch Post Office.

It has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the State from the materials on record that both the cases were registered in 1984 and the charge was framed in the year 1997 and immediately after the framing of charge, the petitioner fled away and came to be arrested only in August, 2011. It has been further submitted that several other cases are pending against the petitioner and he is a habitual offender. Lastly, it has been pointed out to us that 18th April, 2012 has been fixed for recording of evidence and that will continue for 3 days and in second case the recording of evidence will commence in the last week of May, 2012.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that he is involved in similar other cases, in our opinion, it will not be safe to release him when the trial is likely to commence very soon. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.

Trial be expedited.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Asim Kumar Ray, J.)