Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re:- Ankit Shaw vs Re: An Application For Bail Under ... on 17 November, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 77 17.11.2016
pd. C.R.M. No. 9228 of 2016
In re:- Ankit Shaw ... Petitioner.
-And-
Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 18.10.2016 in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No.39/2015 dated 14.1.2015 under Sections 302/120B I.P.C.read with 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S.Saha ... For the petitioner.
Mr. Pradipta Ganguly .... For the State.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case Diary.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although his client is in custody for 540 days but till date, trial has not been commenced.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that earlier the petitioner's prayer for bail was rejected twice by this Court by the detailed and reasoned orders and that too on merit. He further submits that besides the above fact, there are enough materials collected during investigation against the petitioner showing his involvement in the commission of the offence and he has criminal antecedents and five other cases are also pending against him, the details whereof are as follows:
(1) Jagadal P.S.Case No.39 dt. 14.01.15 u/s 326/307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act (& adding Section 302 IPC); 2 (2) Jagaddal P.S.Case No.50 dt. 16.01.14 u/s 342/323/325/506/34 IPC & 25/35 Arms Act;
(3) Jagaddal P.S.Case No.41 dt. 19.01.12 u/s 147/148/149/353/435/186 IPC;
(4) Chakdaha P.S. Case No.414 dt. 18.06.14 u/s 302/34 IPC & 25/27 A.Act, 9B IE Act;
(5) Jagaddal P.S.Case No.794 dt. 13.08.14 u/s 302/201/34 IPC.
We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the materials produced before us by the learned Counsel for the State opposing the prayer for bail.
Not only that, no case is made out from the side of the petitioner, which may justify us to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for bail once again on the self-same materials.
Having regard to above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 3