Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re : Mrinmoy Das on 15 March, 2012
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1
-12 C.R.M. No. 4141 of 2012 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7th March, 2012 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 282 of 2007 dated 19-11-2007 under Sections 147/148/149/364/326/307/367/368 /342/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/26 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.
And
In re : Mrinmoy Das. ... Petitioner.
Mr. Sudipta Moitra,
Mr. Saryati Dutta,
Ms. Koel Dasgupta. ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Debasis Roy, ld.P.P.
Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, ld. A.P.P. ... for the State.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/364/326/307/367/368/342/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/26 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act which have been registered vide Nandigram P.S. Case No. 282 of 2007.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before us that over an alleged incident of 10th of November, 2007 on 19th of November, 2007 the Nandigram P.S. Case No. 282/07 was registered on a suo motu complaint lodged by a Sub- Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station. After conclusion of investigation of the said case, the police submitted charge sheet on 9th November, 2010. Neither the petitioner was named in the FIR nor he was charge-sheeted. Subsequently, on 16th December, 2011, the present petitioner was arrested in connection with this case and on 30th January, 2012 a supplementary charge- sheet has been submitted by the CID. He lastly contended that the petitioner is in custody for 90 days and there is no likelihood that if he is released on bail, he will abscond and tamper with the evidence.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that earlier on 3rd February, 2012 this 2 Court rejected the prayer for bail of one of the accused, Saktipada Dalapati, who is standing on the same footing with the present petitioner.
However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner disputed such contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and in reply to that, learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws our attention to the statements of Srihari Mondal, Sibsankar Das and Kanai Das at pages 74, 137 and 138 of the case diary. According to him those witnesses were also abducted by the miscreants along with the deceased.
The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that since there was a serious lapse in the investigation and nothing was done to unfold the truth by the then investigating officer, the wives of the victims finding no alternative, moved this Hon'ble Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus and pursuant to an order passed by a Division Bench of this court presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and to which one of us is a party (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) the further investigation was undertaken by the CID, West Bengal and examining of most materials witnesses of the case whose statements were not earlier recorded, the petitioner's complicity has been clearly transpired. He vehemently urged that this is not a fit case for bail.
We have gone through the case diary and having regard to the nature of the allegations and the materials collected during the investigation so far as the present petitioner is concerned, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail, accordingly prayer for bail is rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Asim Kumar Ray, J.)