Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajesh Mondal & Ors vs Unknown on 14 July, 2021
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
14.07.2021 Sl. No. 02 Mithun/ Ct.No.42.
IA No: CRAN/1/2021 in CRA/202/2021 (Via Video Conference) In re: An application under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for suspension of the judgment and order dated 25.02.2021 and 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.01(02)2018 and Session Case No.146 of 2017.
In the matter of: Rajesh Mondal & Ors.
...Appellants.
Mr.Arindam Jana, Adv.
Mr.Sumanta Das, Adv.
...for the appellants.
Mr.Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.P.P. Ms.Faria Hossain, Adv.
Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adv.
...for the State.
This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellants/petitioners praying for suspension of sentence and bail.
The petitioners have preferred a bail against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.01(02)2018, corresponding Sessions Case No.146 of 2017 whereby they were convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six years and fine for committing of offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal 2 Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the accused/applicants that they were arrested on 24 th August, 2017. Custodial trial was held and they were convicted and sentenced in the manner as stated above. Therefore, as on this date they are in custody for about three years and eleven months. Since they have completed more than half of the period of sentence of imprisonment, they are entitled to be released on bail.
On merit it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicants that the independent witnesses did not support the search and seizure and recovery of fake Indian currency notes from the possession of the accused/applicants. The learned Trial Judge convicted the accused persons only on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses who are in police force.
Learned P.P.-in-Charge, on the other hand, submits that the witnesses who conducted raid, arrested the accused persons and recovered fake currency notes corroborated the evidence of each other. The fake currency notes were exhibited and scientific report was submitted. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer any illegality. So the learned P.P.-in- Charge has raised serious objection against the prayer for bail. However, he frankly submits that the accused persons are entitled to be released on bail as they have already suffered 3 sentenced for more than half of the highest period of sentence awarded against them by the Trial Court.
Under such conspectus, the appellants are released on bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties, one of whom must be a local surety to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur with further conditions that if on bail, the appellants shall submit their residential address and mobile phone number, if any, by swearing affidavits before the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station. They also visited the Officer-in- Charge of the jurisdictional police station once in a month during the pendency of the appeal.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )