Ismail Mallick vs Unknown on 15 May, 2017

[Cites 33, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ismail Mallick vs Unknown on 15 May, 2017

Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy

43, 44, 49 & 50 pk CRM No. 4149 of 2017 With CRM No. 4151 of 2017 With CRM No. 4157 of 2017 With CRM No. 4158 of 2017 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.05.2017 and on 04.05.17 in connection with Sankrail P.S. Case No. 1033/16 under Sections 147/148/149/323/333/353/427/435/436/505 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the E.S. Act, Sankrail P.S. Case No. 1032/16 dated 14.12.16 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/435/436/153A/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the E.S. Act, Sankrail P.S. Case No. 1028/16 dated 13.12.16 under Sections 147/148/149/153A/154A/238/427/436/325/326/307/295A/296/506/332/3 33/353/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the E.S. Act and Sankrail P.S. Case No. 15/17 dated 09.01.17 under Sections 147/148/149/295A/298/436/183/380/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the E.S. Act and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

                      And
In the matter of:- Ismail Mallick          petitioner
Md. Asraf Ali,
Mr. Sankar Banerjee               for the petitioner

Mr. Navail De                    for the State
                                  CRM No. 4149/17

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das CRM No. 4151/17 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Pradipta Ganguly CRM No. 4157/17 Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddique CRM No. 4158/17 Since the petitioner is common in all the aforesaid bail applications, the same are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first three cases he was named in the FIR and not named in the last one. He further submits that he has been falsely implicated.

On the other hand, from the side of the State prayer for bail is vehemently opposed and it is submitted this is a communal violation and petitioner's direct involvement and participation in the commission of the offence has been clearly transpired from the statement of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. According to those eyewitnesses, he played active role in the commission of the offence, may be that in one case, he has not been named in the FIR. It is further submitted in connection with Sankrail P.S. Case No. 15/17 from his possession huge explosives were recovered.

Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the offence and for the sake of integrity of our country, we are of the opinion, this is not at all a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)