Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Roshan Giri & Pradeep Pradhan vs The State Of West Bengal on 11 April, 2014
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Indrajit Chatterjee, Jayanta Kumar Biswas
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 C.R.M. No.5075 of 2014 Roshan Giri & Pradeep Pradhan
-vs-
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Milon Mukherjee
Mr. Biswajit Manna ...for the petitioners
Mr. Saibal Bapuli
Mr. Soumik Ganguly ...for the State
Heard on: April 11, 2014
Order on: April 11, 2014
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J : The two petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Darjeeling Sadar P.S. Case No.88 of 2010 dated May 21, 2010 under ss.147/148/149/ 186/353/307/506/120B IPC are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Mr Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows. This court granted two accused in the case anticipatory bail on April 1, 2014 in CRM 4522 of 2014. The petitioners think that they are entitled to be treated on same footing as the two persons who have been granted the relief of anticipatory bail in the case.
Mr Bapuli appearing for the State and producing the case diary has submitted that it is correct that the two petitioners are similarly situated in every respect with the two accused who have been granted anticipatory bail by this court on April 1, 2014 in CRM No.4522 of 2014.
The order of this court dated April 1, 2014 in CRM 4522 of 2014 is quoted below:− 2 "The two petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Darjeeling Sadar P.S. Case No.88 of 2010 dated May 21, 2010 under ss.147/148/149/186/353/307/506/120B IPC are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has submitted as follows:− The second petitioner is the first petitioner's wife. The first petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer of Gorkhaland Territorial Administration formed under an agreement dated July 18, 2011 executed by the Government of India, the Government of West Bengal and the Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha. Though the petitioners were in no way connected with the incident and the commission of the offences, they have been falsely implicated in the case out of political rivalry. The petitioners were not named in the FIR that was registered against 400 unknown miscreants on the basis of a self-defence report submitted by the personal security of one Madan Tamang said to have been murdered. In July-August 2013 agitation flared up in the hills after the Union of India declared bifurcation of a State. For suppressing the agitation the authorities initiated a policy of implicating persons of the hills in false and frivolous cases. Curiously, by an order dated August 16, 2013 the court concerned asked the investigating officer to show cause why the charge-sheet had not been submitted in the case. Hence in the charge-sheet submitted on August 29, 2013 the petitioners were named as accused. However, there is nothing to show that they have been declared proclaimed offenders.
Mr. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and producing the case diary has submitted as follows:− Although the FIR was registered against 400 unknown miscreants, the charge-sheet was submitted against 36 out of whom a large number had been arrested during investigation. On September 11, 2013 the court took cognizance and passed order for warrant, proclamation and attachment. Hence it can be said that the petitioners are proclaimed offenders. The witnesses whose statements are at pp.56, 287, 289 and 290 implicated the petitioners in the commission of the offences as conspirators. The first petitioner has a remarkable past. He is involved in several other criminal cases.
Mr. Sen appearing for the wife of one Madan Tamang stated to have been murdered has prayed for leave to make submission and has submitted as follows:− The Madan Tamang murder case is under investigation. It is being investigated by the CBI. The Supreme Court has been overseeing the investigation. The Supreme Court has passed several orders. The orders will reveal that nobody dared to arrest the first petitioner, though he was actively associated with the commission of the offences.
The incident happened on May 21, 2010. The person on whose self-defence written report the FIR was registered on that same day was the personal security of one Madan Tamang said to have been murdered. The victim said that around 400 unknown miscreants attacked Madan Tamang and him and caused him severe bodily injuries. At p.56 of the case diary is the statement of a witness recorded as back as May 28, 2010. The witness said that he had reason to believe that the first petitioner and his associates had hatched up a conspiracy to eliminate Madan Tamang. Statements of the other witnesses were recorded in July 2013 and thereafter.
Though no step was taken to arrest the petitioners, in the charge-sheet they were shown as absconders. On September 11, 2013 the court took cognizance of the offences and passed order for warrant, proclamation and attachment all at once. Order for all these at once was passed again on November 20, 2013. The orders and steps created a confusing situation. But we are unable to accept that the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders. No order was passed pursuant to the provisions of sub-s.(4) of s.82 CrPC. It is another matter whether the provisions were at all applicable to the case.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the facts and circumstances, and the confusing steps taken by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail.
3For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that in the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with the case, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Certified xerox."
In view of the fact that the two petitioners are similarly situated with the two accused who have been granted anticipatory bail by this court on April 1, 2014, we are of the opinion that they are entitled to equality benefit. They should be granted anticipatory bail.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that in the event the petitioners are arrested in connection with the case, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) sb