Dismissed

Leken Basumatary v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC15 Sept 2023CRM(SB)/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The court refused bail due to the petitioner's antecedents, strong evidence of elephant tusks and tiger claws, and apprehension that the petitioner would flee or repeat offenses given his role in an Assam pressure group.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail under Section 439 CrPC dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.

Leken Basumatary Vs the State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

AD-01 Ct No.01 Jalpaiguri 15.09.2023 SP

¶2

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side

¶3

CRM(SB) 12 of 2023

¶4

In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of: LEKEN BASUMATARY ... appellant/petitioner

¶7

Mr. Hillol Saha Podder

¶8

… for the appellant/petitioner

¶9

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Mr. Kallol Nag

¶10

… for the State

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is argued that while the petitioner was in custody in connection with a different complaint, the recovery was made, allegedly from an abandoned house, which is in full public view and could have been a location where the petitioner would have hidden poached items.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to enmity with the forest officials.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and contends that from 2014 till date, several cases have been initiated against the petitioner due to his activities.

¶14

¶15

Further, it is alleged that the petitioner is a resident of Assam, where he was arrested. That apart, the petitioner is the member of a pressure group in Assam, for which the State apprehends that in the event of grant of bail, it would be extremely difficult to trace out the petitioner.

¶16

Apart from the apprehension of the State, it is found that the recovery pertains to elephant tusks and tiger claws, which substantiate the complaint.

¶17

From the materials on record, I am convinced that the benefit of bail ought not to be granted to the petitioner at this stage, since, if so granted, the apprehension would remain that the petitioner may flee justice and escape from the State, and engage in similar activities again. The antecedents of the petitioner do not inspire confidence as well.

¶18

Hence CRM(SB) 12 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶19

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Leken Basumatary v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leken Basumatary v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipsikha Saha Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mohammed Afzal Solanki Alias Mohammed Fazal Solanki Vs Cesc Limited and Ors.

M/S Wpil Limited Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Bulbuli Sarkar and Ors. Vs Putul Sarkar

Bimal Saha and Ors. Vs Dulal Chandra Singha

Sanjay Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal