A special bench denied bail to an accused in a theft/robbery case involving kidnapping. The court found the petitioner and co-accused directly involved, noted his criminal antecedents, and observed that one accused was still absconding.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
12 14.03.2022 rrc
CRM (DB) 226 of 2022 (via video conference)
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
And
In Re : Rajaule Hoque @ Rejaul Hoque @ Nur Selim @ Rejaul Haque @ Nur Selim …..Petitioner
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya ……….for the Petitioner
Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
……….for the State
The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with Tapan P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 dated 05.05.2021 under Sections 363/342/325/379/506/34 and adding Sections 364A/368/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is in custody for about 262 days. He is no way connected with the alleged offence. In our query, he further submitted that although he was arrested in connection with another case, he got statutory bail in that case. He further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., which cannot rule out fabrication of a story and it is also his submission that the name of the present petitioner transpired from the statement of the co-accused. Since Charge Sheet has been filed, according to him, it is not necessary to detain him any further and he may be released on bail.
2
Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State strongly opposed the bail on the ground that this petitioner along with others are habitual offenders and are connected with some kind of offences. The present petitioner was arrested in connection with another offence of similar kind. Even though Charge Sheet has been filed, considering the nature and seriousness of offence and antecedents, Mr. Sur strongly opposed the bail application.
We have heard rival submissions. Perused the case diary.
It appears from the statement of the witnesses that the present petitioner along with other co-accused are directly involved in commission of the alleged offence. His name transpired, as submitted by the learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner, from the statement of the co-accused although the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is silent about the name of the petitioner. It also appears that the present petitioner has antecedent of offence of like nature. One of the accused is still absconding. Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to allow bail and the same stands refused at this stage.
The application CRM (DB) 226 of 2022 is, accordingly, dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail under Section 439 CrPC should be granted to an accused with antecedents and who was named by a co-accused.
Whether the nature and seriousness of the offence and antecedents justify denying bail despite a filed charge sheet.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajaule Hoque
The State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
