Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re:- Uday Barik on 28 July, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 13 28.07.2017
sm Rejected CRM No.7106 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.07.2017 in connection with Kalna Police Station Case No.98of 2017 dated 22.02.2017 under sections 326/307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code with added section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act. .
And
In Re:- Uday Barik..... Petitioner (In jail)
Mr.Ritesh Pal... for the petitioner
Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, Ld.APP
Ms.Sukanya Bhattacharya ... for the State.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Gupta. .. for the de facto complainant.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioner is in custody for 100 days.
The learned advocate for the petitioner claims that out of seven (7) charge sheeted accused persons, four (4) are on bail granted by this Hon'ble Court and another by the learned Sessions Court. The persons, who are on bail granted by this Hon'ble Court, are Rafiul Alam @ Rabiul Alam, Chanchal Jash and Bidhan Mondal, while the prayer for bail of Biswajit Mondal was granted by the learned Sessions Court. He submits that the present petitioner and those four (4) co- accused persons are standing on same footing. Such claim that the petitioner is standing on same footing with the co-accused persons, who are now on bail, has strongly been disputed from the side of the learned APP, Mr.Arun Kumar Maity.
He submits that this is a case, where during manufacturing of bombs, huge explosions took place and two persons died, while one was injured and the person injured is this petitioner.
The learned advocate for the petitioner further adds that according to the statement of the witnesses that one Nanda Lal and the other co-accused person, 2 Biswajit Mondal were found at the place of occurrence, but they were granted bail and further found from the materials collected that they were found near the place of occurrence around 12 noon and, according to some witnesses, that explosions took place 2 and half hours thereafter. Therefore, mere loitering near the place of the incident 2 and half hours before the occurrence and the persons, who were sustained injury in the explosions cannot be said to be standing on the same footing.
Having regard to the above and considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offence, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) 3 13 28.07.2017 sm Rejected CRM No.7106 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.07.2017 in connection with Kalna Police Station Case No.98 of 2017 dated 22.02.2017 under sections 326/307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code with added section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 9B of the Indian Explosive Act. .
And
In Re:- Uday Barik..... Petitioner (In jail)
Mr.Ritesh Pal... for the petitioner
Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, Ld.APP
Ms.Sukanya Bhattacharya ... for the State.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Gupta. .. for the de facto complainant.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioner is in custody for 100 days.
The learned advocate for the petitioner claims that out of seven (7) charge sheeted accused persons, four (4) are on bail granted by this Hon'ble Court and another by the learned Sessions Court. The persons, who are on bail granted by this Hon'ble Court, are Rafiul Alam @ Rabiul Alam, Chanchal Jash and Bidhan Mondal, while the prayer for bail of Biswajit Mondal was granted by the learned Sessions Court. He submits that the present petitioner and those four (4) co- accused persons are standing on same footing. Such claim that the petitioner is standing on same footing with the co-accused persons, who are now on bail, has strongly been disputed from the side of the learned APP, Mr.Arun Kumar Maity.
He submits that this is a case, where during manufacturing of bombs, huge explosions took place and two persons died, while one was injured and the person injured is this petitioner.
4The learned advocate for the petitioner further adds that according to the statement of the witnesses that one Nanda Lal and the other co-accused person, Biswajit Mondal were found at the place of occurrence, but they were granted bail and further found from the materials collected that they were found near the place of occurrence around 12 noon and, according to some witnesses, that explosions took place 2 and half hours thereafter. Therefore, mere loitering near the place of the incident 2 and half hours before the occurrence and the persons, who were sustained injury in the explosions cannot be said to be standing on the same footing.
Having regard to the above and considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offence, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) 5