Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re.: Md. Safikul Sk. & Ors on 14 March, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 25. 14.03.2016
.
ap C.R.M. 1974 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.03.2016 in connection with Haroa Police Station Case No. 168 dated 20.10.2008 under Sections 147/148/149/326/307/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9B of the Indian Explosives Act.
And
In re.: Md. Safikul Sk. & Ors. ......... Petitioners
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu. ...... for the petitioners
Mr. Arun Kumar Maity. .... for the State
Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Santanu Maji.
..for the de facto complainant.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. This is a case, where one person was killed that was on October 20, 2008 and few others were injured.
The petitioners and 35 others were charge-sheeted. While the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 were facing custody trial, the petitioner no.4 was at large and absconding. Subsequently on February 26, 2013, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 and others were granted bail by the Trial Court while the prayer of the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
The de facto complainant challenged the order of granting bail before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court by an 2 order passed in connection with C.R.M. No. 3356 of 2013 on July 17, 2013 cancelled the bail and they were directed to surrender.
The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court but subsequently that was dismissed. Finally, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 while surrendered on January 20, 2016, the petitioner no.3 was arrested one day before i.e. on January 19, 2016. The petitioner no.4 also surrendered along with the petitioner nos.1 and 2 on the same day.
We have gone through the case diary, more particularly through the statements of the injured persons, which are at pages 80, 81 and 82 thereof.
Going through the same, we have no doubt that the petitioners' prima facie complicity has been transpired.
It is true that some of the persons, who were similarly situated with the present petitioners are on bail but the fact remains that after the petitioners' bail was cancelled by this High Court and such order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, they absconded for long three years and subsequently arrested. Furthermore, in this case already out of 25 witnesses, 18 have been examined and 7 are left.
Now, not only having regard to the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the offence as it transpires from the injured witnesses but also their conduct of flouting the order of this Court 3 subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, they do not deserve bail. The application for bail accordingly stands rejected.
We direct that the Trial Court to expedite the trial. We find that the trial could not have been progressed because of the fact that out of 39 accused persons, 18 are still absconding and for that neither the prosecution nor the Trial Court can be held responsible. The trial also hauled up due to the absconsion of the petitioners.
The police authorities are directed to take immediate steps to ensure the apprehension of the accused persons, who are at large and avoiding the process of Court.
The Trial Court is also directed to take all necessary steps in this regard.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court as also to the A.D.G. (Law & Order).
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (C.S. Karnan, J.)