Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Abdul Karim @ Sk. Karim vs The State Of West Bengal on 10 December, 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 Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri CRM No. 15288 of 2013 Abdul Karim @ Sk. Karim v.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir
Mr. Kunal Ganguly ....for the petitioner
Mr. Manjit Singh,PP
Mr. S. Dutta .. for the State
Heard on:December 10, 2013
Order on: December 10, 2013
Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The petitioner's bail prayer was rejected by this court on October 1, 2013 in CRM No.12637 of 2013. The petitioner was the second petitioner in that CRM.
The order of this court dated October 1, 2013 is quoted below:-
"Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The nine petitioners accused of offences under ss.364/302/34 IPC and ss.25/27/35 Arms Act and in custody from March 7, 2013 (the first petitioner), February 20, 2013 (the second and third petitioners) and January 4, 2013 (the fourth- ninth petitioners) are seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.
The court below has refused bail on June 4, 2013 referring to the stage of the case, case diary materials and the possibility of the trial getting affected because of the bail.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. Out of sixteen charge-sheeted accused, seven are absconding. The seizure list will show that all the fire arms and ammunition were seized from the house of one Sk. Nurul. The postmortem report and other materials reveal only two or three bullet injuries. According to the eyewitnesses, the accused fired at random. An inconsistent case has been set up. At random firing would have caused multiple bullet injuries.
Advocate for the State producing the case diary has submitted as follows. Statement in para.1 is partially incorrect. The prosecution case is supported by eyewitness statements at pp.10, 11,63 and 129. The seizure lists at pp.44-49 reveal that the arms and ammunition were seized following leads coming from the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth petitioners. The postmortem report reveals the brutality of the murder.
The bail prayer of the first, second and third petitioners was not pressed on August 19, 2013. This has not been stated in the CRM. The bail prayer of the seventh petitioner was rejected by this court on two previous occasions. Advocate has said that it was rejected only once. Bail prayers of the other petitioners was rejected by this court on one previous occasion. The rejections were after submission of charge-sheet and specifically referring to the eyewitness statements revealing the brutality of the murder.
The eyewitness statements at pp.10, 11,63 and 129 clearly implicate all the petitioners in the commission of the offences. It is a calculated murder. The postmortem report reveals the brutality of the crime. It is of no significance that the victim did not suffer many bullet injuries. He suffered more than one bullet injury. The accused fired at random. Arms and ammunition seized following leads coming from the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth petitioners reveal the nature of the accused. Huge arms and ammunition were seized. It is immaterial that the arms and ammunition all were seized from the house of one Sk. Nurul. Fact remains that they were seized following leads coming from the petitioners.
Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences and the direct involvement of the petitioners, we are of the view that this is not a case for bail, rather a case for the petitioners' custodial trial. Bail to them is likely to affect the general interest of the society and trial of the case.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox."2
Mr. Kabir appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The order of this court dated October 1, 2013 reveals that nothing was seized or recovered following leads coming from the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was one of the persons in the group that attacked the victim and shot him dead. There is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner apart from remaining present did any overt thing. This being the position, the petitioner is entitled to be treated differently. In all fairness, he should be granted bail, because the charge-sheet has already been submitted.
Advocate for the State has submitted as follows. Charge-sheet has been submitted against sixteen. Nine are in custody and seven are absconding. He has referred to the eyewitness statements at pp.10,11,63 and 129.
We have once again considered the case diary materials on the basis whereof the charge- sheet has been submitted. We are unable to accept that the petitioner did not actively participate in the murder of the victim. The eyewitness whose statement is at p.10 has very categorically said that the petitioner was one of the persons who fired shots targeting the victim. In view of the strength of the prosecution case and nature of the offences, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate to grant the petitioner bail.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. We, however, order that the court below shall take immediate steps for splitting up of the case, so that steps may be taken for commencement and conclusion of the trial as expeditiously as possible. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.)
kc (Dr.Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri,J.)