Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail ... vs In Re : Biswajit Dhara & Ors. - on 27 March, 2012
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 20. 27-03-12
CRM No. 3927 of 2012 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.03.2012 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 282/2007 under Sections 147/148/149/364/326/307/367/ 368 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9(B) of the I.E. Act and added Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re : Biswajit Dhara & ors. - petitioners Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee Mr. Rabi Sankar Chatterjee Mr. Uday Sankar Chatterjee Mr. Anindya Sundar Das ... for the petitioners Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. P.P. ... for the State The petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 282/2007 dated 19.11.2007 under Sections 147/148/149/364/326/307/367/368 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9(B) of the I.E. Act and added Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this court for anticipatory bail.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that this is a matter where investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted therefore the question of taking the petitioners in custody is no more necessary. He further submitted that the allegations are omnibus in nature and out of political rivalry, the supporters of a particular political party have been implicated in this case. He also contended that the charge-sheet itself will show that the investigation is absolutely perfunctory in nature.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that this is a case where the present petitioners belonging to the 2 then ruling party involved in a carnage in which several supporters of the opposite political party were abducted and out of them, 7 were missing.
Now after the order passed by this court, investigation has been undertaken by the C.I.D and in course of such investigation, the complicity of the present petitioners has been very much transpired as well as their involvement in killing 5 of the victims who were abducted has been transpired. He submitted that the submission of the charge-sheet cannot stand in the way of submitting supplementary charge-sheet if in further investigation additional materials found out. He then submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary so as to unfold the other accused persons whose faces were muffled and involved in the offence as well as for recovery of the offending weapons and other incriminating materials.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the police papers.
Now considering the statement of the witnesses at pages 47, 121 and 122 of the case diary as against the petitioner no. 1, Biswajit Dhara, the statement of the witnesses at pages 156 and 159 as against the petitioner no. 2, Sudipta Dhara/Das, the statement of the witnesses at page 156 as against the petitioner no. 3, Nanda Bhuniya, the statement of the witnesses at page 156 as against the petitioner no. 4, Mahadeb Das, the statement of the witnesses at page 156 as against the petitioner no. 5, Rabin Majhi, the statement of the witnesses at pages 156 and 159 as against the petitioner no. 8, Tapan Dhara/Das, the statement of the witnesses at pages 156 and 159 as against the petitioner no. 9, Arjun Maity and the statement of the witnesses at pages 156 and 159 as against the petitioner no. 10, we are of the opinion so far as they are concerned, it is not a fit case to allow their prayer for pre-arrest bail.
So far as the petitioner nos. 6 and 7 are concerned our attention has been drawn from the side of the State to the statement of the witnesses at pages 45, 143 and 156 of the case Diary. Now having regard to the same we are of the opinion their prayer for pre- arrest bail can be considered favourably.
3
In the result, while we reject the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 & 10, we allow the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 6, Sankar Kar and petitioner no. 7, Rabin Bhuinya.
We direct that in the event the petitioner nos. 6 and 7 are arrested in connection with the aforesaid case they shall be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each with one surety of like amount each by the arresting police officer and within two weeks thereafter they must surrender before the regular Court. We make it clear that after surrender before the regular Court, if any prayer for bail is made by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the Court concerned in accordance with law and without being anyway swayed by this order.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Asim Kumar Ray, J.)