The Division Bench denied bail to the petitioner in a murder and arms case, distinguishing him from co-accused on bail due to corroborated presence, graver role, and criminal antecedents, emphasizing the life imprisonment trajectory.
Prayer for bail rejected. Trial to be concluded at earliest without unnecessary adjournments.
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.
08.08.2023. 26. Ct.No.28 as (Rejected)
C.R.M. (DB) 2162 of 2023
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Canning P. S. Case No.494 of 2021 dated 21.11.2021 under Sections 302/120B/201/212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/35 of the Arms Act.
In the matter of : Rahamat Gazi. … Petitioner. Mr. Souvik Mitter, Mr. Joy Chakraborty. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. A.P.P., Mrs. Sonali Das. ...for the State. Md. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Aneek Pandit, Ms. S. Mitra, Mr. Ali Rizvi, Mr. Avijit Kundu. …for the de-facto complainant.
Petitioner submits he is not the principal accused. There is no evidence that he had fired at the victim. Co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Unlike Rafique Sk, he does not have criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he may be released on bail.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor places on record report to highlight the role played by the petitioner vis-a-vis coaccused who are on bail. He also submits petitioner has criminal antecedents. Five criminal cases are pending against him.
Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant also opposes the bail prayer.
We have considered the materials on record. Allegation in the First Information Report as well as statements of witnesses
2
show miscreants came in a auto rickshaw. They alighted and fired at the victim. As a result, the victim died. Presence of the petitioner in the auto rickshaw has been spoken of by the witnesses. CCTV footage also corroborates these statements. None of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail were said to be present at the place of occurrence. Hence, role of the petitioner in the crime is on a graver footing than those who have been enlarged on bail. He also has criminal antecedents. Offence, if proved, would attract life imprisonment.
Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Trial court is requested to proceed with the trial with utmost expedition and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a life imprisonment case where presence is corroborated by witnesses and CCTV.
Whether the petitioner's criminal antecedents and graver role than co-accused on bail justify refusal of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rafique SkDistinguished¶5
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rahamat Gazi
State
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
