Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jatin Sonkar vs State Of West Bengal on 10 July, 2014
Author: Indrajit Chatterjee
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Indrajit Chatterjee
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 Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.6095 of 2014 Jatin Sonkar v.
State of West Bengal Mr. Kamalesh Ch. Saha Mr. Narayan Ch.Saha ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Pratick Bose ... for the State. Heard on :- July 10,2014. Order on :- July 10, 2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Haldia P.S. Case No.70 of 2013 dated May 25,2013 under ss.120B/379 IPC and s.15 PMP Act is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The accusation is that using a tanker petroleum products were being stolen. One Susanta was caught with the tanker. Susanta is the registered owner of the tanker. Susanta has been granted bail and the tanker has been returned to him. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR. Charge-sheet has been submitted against ten and all co-accused are on bail. The question is how the petitioner has been implicated. He has been implicated either on the basis of the co-accused statement or statement obtained subsequently from the witnesses. On the facts, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and a report of the Superintendent of Police pursuant to order of this court dated July 3,2014. In the order dated July 3,2014 it was noted that advocate for the State could not 2 show on what basis charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police has referred to the documents at pp.99,102,106,113 and 130 of the case diary.
The document at p.99 is a statement of a co-accused. He has said that the petitioner was behind everything. The case was instituted on the basis of the report of CISF personnel. Criminals were found loading valuable petroleum products from the HPL pipelines drilling the pipelines. The tanker was seized with the loaded product. The document at p.130 is the statement of an independent witness. He also said that it is the petitioner who was running the whole affair.
The document at p.102 is a power of attorney whereby the petitioner was appointed the constituted attorney to use the vehicle. The document at p.106 is an agreement under which the petitioner was using the vehicle that was seized. The document at p.113 is a request letter of the investigating officer to the officer in charge of a police station for raiding the petitioner's house.
After considering the facts and circumstances and the materials in the case diary, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to grant the petitioner anticipatory bail. His involvement in the incident is evident and bail granted to other accused cannot entitle him to anticipatory bail from this court.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.
sh ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)
(Indrajit Chatterjee, J)
3