Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Avijit Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 22 July, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: 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 Subal Baidya
CRM No.10191 of 2013
Avijit Ghosh
v.
State of West Bengal
Mr.Milan Mukherjee
Mr.Samiran Mandal .. for the petitioner.
Mr.Manjit Singh, PP
Mr.Saryajit Dutta .. for the State.
Mr.Kumarjyoti Tewari
Mr.Manas Kumar Das
Mr.Tarunjyoti Tewari. .. for the defacto complainant.
Heard on: July 22, 2013.
Order on: July 22, 2013.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.:- The petitioner charge-sheeted under ss.
147/148/149/449/324/326/307/354/302/427 IPC and in custody from March 13, 2012 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.
Out of eight charge-sheeted accused five were initially arrested, one has been recently arrested and two are still absconding. The FIR was lodged as back as March 9, 2012. All the arrested accused are in custody. Bail prayer has been rejected by this court on four previous occasions. Bail prayer of one of the accused has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Mr.Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The post-mortem doctor did not record any opinion that the injuries were homicidal in nature. The girl centering whom the whole thing started went on improving her version. The case stated in the FIR was sought to be improved while the 2 statements were recorded. The materials do not suggest that the petitioner played any effective role in the incident.
The opinion of the post-mortem doctor is only a piece of evidence. The opinion is not everything for deciding whether there is any chance of conviction. The eyewitness statements only support the prosecution case. If the girl has improved her version from time to time, that aspect will be relevant at the time of trial. Today we do not find any new circumstance that may be a warrant for granting the petitioner bail, especially when considering the materials referred to us the bail prayer was rejected by this court on four previous occasions. In our opinion, this is a case for custodial trial of the petitioner.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. We, however, order that the court below already fixing the trial schedule shall strictly follow the schedule for ensuring speedy conclusion of trial of the case. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.) sm.