Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sections 9(B)(Ii) Of I.E. Act vs In Re : Ismail Mallick & Ors on 27 September, 2018
1 27.09.201849
sdas Rejected C.R.M. 8230 of 2018 In Re.: An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.09.2018 in connection with Arambag Police Station Case No. 136 of 2018 dated 03.03.2018 under Sections 448/341/326/307/302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 9(b)(ii) of I.E. Act.
And In Re : Ismail Mallick & Ors. ..... petitioners Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Ms. Rajlaxmi Ghatak, Mr. Hirak Roy ... for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned A.P.P., Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya ... for the State Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for 58 days and it is also submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case as they had initiated proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court on the premise that the associates of the defacto complainant were preventing them from entering the village.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners were named by the eye-witnesses as members of the unlawful assembly who assaulted the victim resulting in his death.
2
We have considered the materials on record. We have also examined the statements of the said eye-witnesses. Statements were promptly recorded much prior to the institution of the writ proceeding by the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and the prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.
The application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)