Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re:- Sanjoy Ram @ Suku vs Re: An Application For Bail Under ... on 28 June, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 33 28.6.2017
C.R.M. No.5953 of 2017 p.d.
In re:- Sanjoy Ram @ Suku .... Petitioner.
-And-
Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 21.6.2017 in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No.118/2016 dated 1.2.2016 under Sections 395/397/326/307/412 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Mr. Rabisankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Shubadip Banerjee, Mr. Soumen Banerjee, Ms. Snigdha Saha ... For the petitioner.
Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, A.P.P., Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharya .... For the State. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner is in custody for one year and one month. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no charge has been framed although charge sheet has been submitted long back.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in one single night, this petitioner committed dacoity at five places and similar other cases of dacoity are also pending against him, the details whereof are as follows:-
"" (i ) Singur PS case No.36/16 dt.1.2.16 u/s. 395/396 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act, adding sec.396 IPC (SC No.81/16, ST No.17/17), (ii) Jamalpur PS case No.23/16 dated 1/2/16 u/s.395/397 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, (iii) Dankuni PS case No.492/15 dt.6.12.15 u/s.395/397 IPC & 2 25/27 Arms Act (ST No.15(8)/16), (iv) Suri PS case No.16/16 dt. 11.1.16 u/s.395/397 IPC, 25(ii)(a) Arms Act, (v) Durgapur PS case No.48/16 dt.24.1.16 u/s.395/397 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act etc. (vi) Andal PS case No.116/16 dt.11.05.16 u/s.413/414 IPC & 25 (ii)(B)/27 Arms Act.""
It is further submitted that in this case, not only the petitioner was identified in the T.I.Parade and the stolen articles were recovered from his possession but the police also took the chance fingers print from the place of occurrence and that have been matched with the specimen fingers print of this petitioner.
We have gone through the case diary and find that the T.I. Parade Sheet is at page-626 of the case diary and the petitioner has been identified in the T.I.Parade and there is recovery of Mobile Phone of one of the injured persons and the Fingers Print Report is at page-758 thereof.
Now, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected. However, the trial be expedited.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )