Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Mahadeb Jana & Ors vs State Of West Bengal) on 14 September, 2011
Author: Kalidas Mukherjee
Bench: Kalidas Mukherjee
4.09.2011
31 & 32)
p.j.)
CRM No. 7806 of 2011
&
CRM No. 7807 of 2011
In re: Mahadeb Jana & Ors. -Petitioners
-And-
In re : Sk. Barik @ Barik @ Sk Abdul Barik - Petitioners
Mr. Milan Mukherjee
Mr. Subhashis Dasgupta ...For the Petitioners
Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, APP
Mr. Arijit Ganguly ... For the State
In CRM No. 7806 of 2011
Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, APP
Mr. Soumik Ganguly ... For the State
In CRM No. 7807 of 2011
Re : Applications for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
filed on 23.8.2011.
These are the two applications for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
bearing CRM No. 7806 of 2011 and CRM No. 7807 of 2011 on behalf of the petitioners who
apprehend arrest in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 283/2007 dated 19.11.2007 under
Sections 147/148/149/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and
Nandigram P.S. Case No. 386 of 2007 dated 26.11.2007 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/427
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
The two applications are taken up together for hearing and order.
2
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the
applications, contends that over the selfsame incident two cases were lodged and in both the cases
de facto complainant is the same. It is contended that the victim in both the cases is the same. It is
submitted that the first date of occurrence is 27th October, 2007 and the FIR was lodged on
19.11.2007, that is, 23 days after the incident bearing Nandigram P.S. Case No. 283 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007.
Mr. Mukherjee further contends that in the second case, that is, bearing Nandigram P.S. Case No. 386 of 2007 dated 26.11.2007, the date of incident is 6.11.2007 and the FIR was lodged 20 days after the incident. Mr. Mukherjee contends that in both the cases the earlier applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. were rejected by the Hon'ble Court. By referring to the Full Bench decision reported in (2010) 3 C. Cr. LR. (Cal) 314 (Sudip Sen vs. State of West Bengal) paragraph 31, Mr. Mukherjee contends that there is substantial change due to subsequent events. It is the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that because of filing of the charge-sheet in the second case, the petitioners came to learn about the second case and this is the subsequent event which entitles the petitioners to file the applications for the second time. Mr. Mukherjee does not want to enter into the merits of the case so far as the injury is concerned.
Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing for the State, produces the case diary in both the cases and opposes the applications. Mr. Sanyal has referred to the injury reports.
We have gone through the injury reports as appearing in the case diary in both the cases. It is the case under Sections 147/148/149/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after considering the materials appearing in the case diary, we are of the view that the filing of the charge-sheet in the subsequent case cannot be said to be substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. The present applications in both the cases for the second time are not entertainable and both the applications are accordingly rejected. 2 3
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Kalidas Mukherjee, J.) (Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.) 3