Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uttam Sant & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 11 July, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Subal Baidya, 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 C.R.M. No.9809 of 2013 Uttam Sant & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir
Mr. Asraf Mondal ...for the petitioners
Mr. Tapash Kumar Bhattacharya
Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury ... for the State
Heard on : July 11, 2013
Order on :July 11, 2013
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J : The three petitioners accused of offences under ss.147/148/149/323/324/325/307/427/379/302 IPC and ss.25/ 27 Arms Act and s.9B Explosives Act and in custody from December 21, 2012 (the first and third petitioners) and December 25, 2012 (the second petitioner) are seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.
The offences were allegedly committed on December 20, 2012. The incident led to the registration of two FIRs: one on December 20, 2012 and the other on January 13, 2013 (CRM p.15). In the FIR dated December 20, 2012 thirty-four persons were named. The group of the petitioners lodged the FIR dated January 13, 2013. It was a clash between two groups.
The FIR dated December 20, 2012 led to a charge-sheet against forty-five accused. Thirteen including the petitioners applied for bail. By an order dated April 18, 2013 (in CRM No.5487 of 2013: p.13) while bail was granted ten co-
2accused, the petitioners' bail prayer was rejected. The petitioners are renewing their prayer.
Referring to the injury reports of the members of the petitioners' group, Mr Kabir appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR dated January 13, 2013 was registered diluting the nature and gravity of the offences so as to strengthen the prosecution case of the other group lodging the FIR dated December 20, 2012. He has said that there is no possibility of immediate trial of the case.
Mr Ghosh appearing for the State has produced the case diary to show the materials implicating the petitioners. It is evident that a large number of accused in the case is yet to be apprehended.
The question is whether this is a case for custodial trial insofar as the petitioners are concerned. In our considered opinion, it is not. As noted hereinbefore, there was a case and a counter case and there are reasons to say that two groups clashed and committed offences. The allegations are to be established. We think in the interest of justice the petitioners should be granted bail.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail on a `20,000 bond (for each) with two sureties (for each) of `10,000 each (one local surety) - all to the satisfaction of CJM, Paschim Medinipur; and that if released, they shall not enter Paschim and Purba Medinipur except for attending court proceedings and shall report once in a week to the officer in charge of the police station of their place of stay information whereof they shall give to the officer in charge of Keshpur police station before their release. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) 3 (Subal Baidya, J) sb