Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail ... vs 1. Sk. Kutub on 9 August, 2017
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1 09.8.2017
C.R.M. 6404 of 2017 Rejected 678 ML Sc In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 5th July, 2017.
And In the matter of : 1. Sk. Kutub, 2. Sk. Naim, 3. Sk. Tapan, 4. Sk. Abdul,
5. Sk. Mafikul, 6. Rajkumar Malick, 7. Munshi Altaf,
8. Bishambhar Mitra, 9. Saheb Singh, 10. Khokon Singh,
11. Badsha Midya @ Badsha Singh, 12. Sk. Haider Ali,
13. Sk. Jahid, 14. Sk. Harun, 15. Sk. Yanush, 16. Bablu Maitra, 17. Binoy Pal, 18. Jhantu Sk., 19. Nabab Ali Khan,
20. Abdul Aziz Khan @ Laltu Khan, 21. Santu Khan,
22. Nurul Huda Khan, 23. Mafiq Khan, 24. Rafiq Khan,
25. Jalal Khan, 26. Dulal Khan, 27. Rashid Khan,
28. Zahir Khan and 29. Goutam Mallick.
Petitioners Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar.
..... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Mr. Suman De.
...... For the State
Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Arambag Police Station FIR No.396 of 2017 dated 10.04.2017 under sections 147/148/149/447/448/427/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sections 3/4/9(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.
We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary, more particularly the seizure list and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the seriousness of the allegations under investigation and the level of complicity of the petitioners, as revealed from the case diary, we are of the considered opinion that their custodial interrogation is necessary for effective and meaningful progress of investigation of the FIR and that they are not entitled to direction as prayed for in the application.
2The application, thus, stands rejected.
(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)