Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Khosbor Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 May, 2014
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sahidullah Munshi CRM No.2630 of 2014 Khosbor Mondal, Jahangir Mondal, Bajlur Sk. & Tipu Sk.
v.
The State of West Bengal Mr. Dipak Kumar Sengupta ... for the petitioners.
Ms. Sujata Das ... for the State. Heard on: May 2, 2014. Order on: May 2, 2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The four petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Nowda P.S. Case No.257 of 2013 dated September 22, 2013 under ss.341/325/308 IPC (s.304 IPC added subsequently) and ss.3/4 Explosive Substances Act are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Mr. Sengupta appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows. It was a fight between two groups. The fight led to a case and a counter case. The first case was filed by the petitioners' group on September 22, 2013 under ss.147/148/149/326 IPC. The injured person died around two months after the incident. The death had no relation to the incident. The post-mortem report will perhaps support this. On the facts, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail, especially when some of the co-accused have been granted bail by the court below.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and referred to the materials therein, especially to the injury reports at pp.30-42 and the post- mortem report at p.73.2
The incident led to institution of two cases. Both were registered on the same day. It is true that the case registered by the petitioners' people was the first case. We are unable to see how this fact can entitle the petitioners to anticipatory bail. Bail by the court below is of no consequence. The fact that the incident led to institution of a case and a counter case leads to a prima facie conclusion that the accused in the both cases were involved in the fight. There is no dispute that the de facto complainant's group sustained injuries and that one of the injured person died. We do not see any reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners whose complicity in the incident is evident from the case diary materials.
For these reasons, the CRM is dismissed. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)
S.R. (Sahidullah Munshi, J.)