Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ram Jadav & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 September, 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 C.R.M. No.12450 of 2013 Ram Jadav & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Amitabha Karmakar ...for the petitioners
Mr. Tapas Ghosh
Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury ...for the State
Heard on : September 17, 2013
Order on : September 17, 2013
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J : The two petitioners accused of offences under ss.302/34 IPC, ss.25/27 Arms and s.9B Explosives Act and in custody from June 7, 2013 are seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.
The court below has refused bail on September 2, 2013 referring to the case diary materials and the gravity of the offences. It has referred to the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted, and that trial is likely to commence very soon.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. The petitioners were not named in the FIR. There is nothing to implicate them in the commission of the offences. The charge-sheet has been submitted. In para.10 it has been stated that the petitioners are working in two private companies.
2Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and has said that out of twelve charge-sheeted accused persons, five have been arrested; and that all five are in custody. He has referred to the eyewitness statement at p.90.
The FIR was lodged on June 7, 2013. The defacto complainant is the brother of the deceased and he is also an eyewitness to the murder. In his written information of the murder he has named some of the murderers and has said about some unknown persons participating in the murder. The deceased was murdered on June 6, 2013 at 10 p.m. The document at p.19 is the statement of an eyewitness. He has specifically named the persons named in the FIR and also the petitioners. The materials make out a very strong prosecution case against the petitioners. It is a calculated murder.
Having regard to the nature of the offences, severity of the punishment, strength of the prosecution case and interest of the society, we are of the view that this is not a case for bail, rather a case for the petitioners' custodial trial.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Everything said herein is only for the purpose of bail. We, however, order that the court below shall take immediate steps for splitting up of the case so that its trial may commence and be concluded against the accused facing trial as expeditiously as possible. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) (Subal Baidya, J) sb