Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mallick vs The State Of West Bengal on 2 July, 2014
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Indrajit Chatterjee, 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 Indrajit Chatterjee C.R.M. No.7454 of 2014 Jahangir Mallick, Yasin Sk., Jafar Mallick, Jiabul Sk. @ Sk. Jiabu, Khokan Sk. & Rahim Mallick
-vs-
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Saikat Kumar Palit ...for the petitioners
Mr. Madhusudan Sur ...for the State
Heard on: July 2, 2014
Order on: July 2, 2014
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J : The six petitioners in the CRM saying that they are apprehending arrest in connection with Mongalkote P.S. Case No.8 of 2014 under ss.147/148/341/364/323/326/307/379 IPC are seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows. According to the complainant, one Santu and one Laltu are the principal accused. Both of them have been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session. The petitioners have reasons to believe that they are on a better footing. Hence the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.
Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and referred to the medical papers at pp.20 and 23-28 and the statements of witnesses at pp.10-18, 37 and 38. He has said that all the petitioners have been named in the FIR.
The victim is the complainant. The accusations are that the accused together lifted the victim, took him to the back of a TMC party office, beat him severely, and caused him grievous bodily injuries, especially fracture injuries to 2 his both hands and legs. The medical papers and the statements of the witnesses fully support the accusations. The complainant has specifically named the petitioners as the persons lifting him, beating him and causing him all the injuries. He has further said that the petitioners were the people of Santu and Laltu.
In view of the case diary materials and the nature and gravity of the accusations, we see no reason why the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail. The materials reveal their complicity in the incident. Anticipatory bail granted by the Court of Session to Santu and Laltu is of no consequence; and, in any case, that cannot entitle the petitioners to equality benefit from this court.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J) sb