Court rejected second bail application. Bench held no material change in circumstances since prior October 4, 2021 rejection. Serious charges and case diary materials against petitioner warranted continued custody.
Prayer for bail rejected; criminal matter CRM (DB) 439 of 2022 dismissed.
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.
01.03.2022
41 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK REJECTED
C.R.M. (DB) 439 of 2022
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No . 124 of 2021 dated 02.05.2021 under Sections 302/395/341/323/506/427/143/147/148/149/449 /452/201/395/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And
In Re : Sufal Bose @ Rana ...… petitioner Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Sujan Chatterjee .…for the petitioner Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Pronoy Basak Mr. Litan Maitra .…for the de-facto complainant Mr. Phiroze Edulji Mr. Samrat Goswami .…for the CBI
Petitioner renews the prayer for bail.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner is in custody for about 210 days. The petitioner was arrested on July 3, 2021. The police filed charge-sheet on August 5, 2021. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation from August 25, 2021. He draws the attention of the Court to the earlier order of rejection. He submits that, the Court while rejecting the earlier prayer for bail on October 4, 2021 recorded the submission of the CBI that petitioner herein who was one of the co-petitioners
2
in CRM 6552 of 2021 was identified by the eye witness as the person involved in the incident. He submits that, such contention of the CBI is contrary to the records. In support of such contentions, he draws the attention of the Court to the various portions of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet. He submits that, the involvement of the petitioner in the incident does not transpire from either the charge-sheet or the supplementary charge-sheet.
CBI and the de-facto complainant are represented.
Learned advocate appearing for the CBI submits that there is hardly any material change in circumstances subsequent to the earlier order of rejection that the Court to grant bail to the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary and submits that involvement of the petitioner in the incident transpires therefrom.
The petitioner was one of the petitioners making the prayer for grant of bail in CRM 6552 of 2001. Such prayer was rejected on October 4, 2021. The submission on behalf of the CBI that all the co-petitioners in CRM 6552 of 2021 were identified by the eye witness as the persons involved in the incident was recorded. The police submitted charge-sheet on August 5, 2021. The CBI took over investigation on August 25, 2021. It is contented on behalf of the CBI that they applied for further investigation before the Jurisdictional Court and without allowing such prayer, the Jurisdictional Court committed the case for trial. There is a revisional application
3
pending against the order of committal before the Revisional Court.
In the charge-sheet, which the attention of the Court was drawn to, it appears that the petitioner herein is named as one of the accused persons involved in the incident. The chargesheet records that the investigation reveals identity of twenty persons including the petitioner. There are materials in the case diary implicating the petitioner.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein and considering the fact that there is hardly any material change in circumstances subsequent to the earlier order of rejection dated October 4, 2021, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and the application being CRM (DB) 439 of 2022 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite no material change in circumstances following a prior rejection order.
Whether the involvement of the petitioner in the incident justifies denial of bail despite chargesheet limitations.
Whether serious charges under Sections 302 and others preclude bail release.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sufal Bose @ Rana
Mr. Milon Mukherjee
Mr. Sujan Chatterjee
CBI
de-facto complainant
DEBANGSU BASAK
BIBHAS RANJAN DE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
