Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kaji Maidul Rahaman & Anr vs Unknown on 24 July, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 24.07.201743
pk CRM No. 6777 of 2017 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.07.2017 in connection with Ghatal P.S. Case No. 118/17 dated 16.06.17 under Sections 458/436/302/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In the matter of:- Kaji Maidul Rahaman & Anr.
petitioners
Mr. Prabir Mitra,
Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee for the petitioners
Mr. Arun Kumar Maity,
Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharjee for the State
Leave is granted to correct the cause title.
Heard the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioners are in custody for 35 days. Out of five FIR named accused, two have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court.
Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that this is a case where three persons were burnt to death alive by confining them in a room. When we asked him about the involvement of these petitioners, he draws our attention to the statements of some witnesses and according to whom a few days before the occurrence these petitioners were found carrying a jerrycan, full of petrol. He further submits that such jerrycan was seized from the possession of the present petitioners. In this regard, he first draws our attention to the statement of 2 the petitioner no. 1, pursuant to which the said jerrycan was seized, is at page 30 then to the seizure list at page 90 of the case diary. Going through the seizure list, we find that seizure took place between 12-25 and 12-35 hours but there was no seizure witness, which the learned counsel for the State could not explain to us why there was no seizure witness. He then traced upon the statement of the petitioner no. 1, pursuant to which the seizure was made.
It is the elementary principle of criminal jurisprudence and according to the provision of Section 162, no statement made by any accused to a police is admissible in evidence unless such statement attracts the provision of Clause (1) of Sections 32 and 27 of the Evidence Act.
In this case, since the discovery of the article in question is doubtful as there was no seizure witness and when no case is made out if the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to abscond, the prayer for bail is allowed.
Let the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, both of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur.
The application for bail is thus disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.) 3