Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ayub Khan vs State Of West Bengal on 9 April, 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.5021 of 2014 Ayub Khan v.
State of West Bengal Mr. Shambhu Nath Roy Mr. R. Chakraborty ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmalya Biswas ... for the State.
Heard on :- April 9,2014.
Order on:- April 9,2014.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Bhabanipur P.S.Case No.96 of 2010 dated June 6,2010 under ss.147/148/149/436/427/379 IPC is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The case was instituted because of political rivalry. In all seventeen persons were involved. The co-accused are on bail. The charge-sheet has been submitted. Hence, on the facts, the petitioner is prayer for anticipatory bail.
Advocate for the State has submitted as follows. It is true that the case was instituted because of political rivalry. Relevant statement of the witness is at p.7. The accusation is that the petitioner and the other accused destroyed the party office by fire. There is no medical paper 2 showing any visible injury. The FIR was registered as back as June 6,2010. The petitioner was named.
The case diary reveals that the charge-sheet was submitted as back as July 30,2010. The petitioner was shown as an absconder. The case diary materials reveal the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the offences. Bail to the other accused does not entitle the petitioner to anticipatory bail. Nor is he entitled to the relief because the case was the result of political rivalry. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and the other accused destroyed a party office by fire. On these facts, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.
sh                                          ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)




                                              (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)
 3