Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re:- Sk.Javed @ Bhola on 12 May, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 06 12.05.2017
sm Rejected CRM No.3814 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.04.2017 in connection with Cossipore Police Station Case No.09/08 dated 16.01.2008 under sections 120B/302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25(1B)(a) and section 27 of the Arms Act.
And In Re:- Sk.Javed @ Bhola... Petitioner Mr.Sabyasachi Banerjee Mr.Anirban Dutta ... for the petitioner Mr.Pradipta Ganguly ... for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that his client is in custody for more than nine (9) years and although the trial has commenced, but till date out of 56 witnesses, examination-in-chief of five (5) witnesses has been concluded and today is the date fixed for the examination of PW6, but, the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses has been deferred at the behest of the defence in terms of provision of section 232 CrPC.
He further submits that out of nine (9) charge-sheeted accused persons, four (4) are on bail and out of them, the present petitioner is standing on same footing with two.
He then contends that according to the evidence of one of the eyewitnesses, this petitioner only allegedly fired a shot at him, but 2 the person died due to knife blow. He also contends that the principal accused has been spared and not sent for trial.
On the other-hand, the learned advocate for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. He first submits that as many as on eight (8) occasions, the petitioner's prayer was rejected on merit by eight (8) different co-ordinate Benches of this court.
He then submits that the claim of the petitioner that the principal accused, who killed the victim, Krishna, was not placed in the trial, is totally unfounded and the learned advocate for the petitioner has not been correctly instructed. Since the said accused was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence, he is facing enquiry before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board in terms of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
He further submits that the delay occasioned in conclusion of the trial was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused persons. They did not engage any lawyer for their defence and, on the other-hand, whenever any lawyer is engaged by the trial court from the panel of the District Legal Services Authority then, on one pretext or other, moved the court for change. On one occasion, the accuseds claimed that the trial will be conducted by one advocate, Ashok Pal, but during the trial, no such lawyer was available. He 3 points out that the petitioner was identified in TI Parade both by the injured witness and the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
He further submits that the incident occurred at around 8 pm in the evening in a busy public place near a school and the petitioner and his associates came in a car and started hurling bombs and open fired and the entire locality was terrorized.
Now, considering the rival submissions of the parties and the facts as above and the materials made available to us from the case diary and considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial strictly in terms of section 309 CrPC and to make all attempts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year.
The report filed on behalf of the State be taken on record.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) 4