JUDGMENT RAGHUNATH RAY, J. 1. ACCUSED Chandi Charan Karan @ Chandi Karan apprehends police arrest in connection with Lalgarh P.S. Case No. 4 of 2011 dated7.1.2011under Section120B/148/149/326/307/302 IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act corresponding to CBI, SCB, Kolkata Case No. RC 3/S/2011-Kol dated 21.2.2011 (G.R. case No.21 of 2011) pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram. Hence this application under Section 438 CrPC. 2. APPEARING in support of the anticipatory bail petition it is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if allegations made in the FIR as also chargesheet are taken on its face value, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner was involved in killing of nine innocent villagers or causing grievous hurt to the village people. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was present at the P.O. when indiscriminate firing was made at the mob from the roof top. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner was provided with security guards till 10th April, 2011 because of maoist threat to his life. By filing a supplementary affidavit, it is also averred on behalf of the petitioner that maoist miscreants even caused landmine explosion to kill him and his body guards on 13.3.09 at about 9 A.M. in the morning. He had to lodge an FIR against the unknown miscreants. Accordingly, Lalgarh P.S. Case No. 13/09 dated 14.3.09 under Section 307/120B IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the unknown maoist miscreants. He has also referred to Lalgarh P.S. Case No. 24/2009 dated 7.4.09 under Section 148/149/448/380 IPC read with Section 25(1A)/27/35 of Arms Act and also Lalgarh P.S. Case No. 78/2009 dated 25.7.09 under Section 148/149/448/380 IPC read with Section 25 (1A)/27/35 of the Arms Act in the Supplementary Affidavit. It is, therefore, argued by him that to defend the innocent villagers on the face of violent maoist onslaught such leftist Camps were set up. The safety and security of the villagers have thus been safe-guarded. 3. THAT apart, whenever investigation of the case has since been completed and chargesheet has already been filed, there is hardly any scope/ requirement for custodial interrogation. In such a situation, the petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail should be allowed. 4. SUCH submission of Mr. The safety and security of the villagers have thus been safe-guarded. 3. THAT apart, whenever investigation of the case has since been completed and chargesheet has already been filed, there is hardly any scope/ requirement for custodial interrogation. In such a situation, the petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail should be allowed. 4. SUCH submission of Mr. Mukherjee is, however, strongly disputed by Mr. Himansu De, learned counsel for the CBI. It is argued by him that the present accused petitioner played an important role in setting up unauthorized armed Camps illegally at Karar, Netai and some other adjacent villages on the plea of combating maoist onslaught. By referring to several statements of eyewitnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it is submitted by him that the name of the accused petitioner figures in those statements and he was instrumental in causing tragic death of as many as nine innocent villagers as also grievous hurt to a good number of villagers. His further contention is that there is also plethora of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC wherefrom it would appear that he was a regular visitor to both the armed Camps at Karar and Netai. In this context, he has invited our attention to the relevant portion of their statements corroborating each other to establish prima facie that the accused petitioner used to visit the armed Camp at Netai now and then and also organize meetings with the villagers for imparting compulsory arms training to them. There are materials on record to suggest that the accused petitioners frequent visit to the armed Camp at Netai on different dates prior to the fateful day of killings i.e., on 7.1.11 when nine villagers succumbed to their bullet injuries lends support to the conspiracy angle of this case. In such view of the matter, the petitioners pivotal role as one of the conspirators can hardly be minimized. Furthermore, the petitioner together with seven other co-accused managed to evade police arrest since the date of registration of this case against them and others. It is also submitted by him that the CBI had to declare all these eight absconders including the petitioner as proclaimed offender and to announce a cash prize of Rs. 1 lakh each for relevant information in respect of their present whereabouts. It is also submitted by him that the CBI had to declare all these eight absconders including the petitioner as proclaimed offender and to announce a cash prize of Rs. 1 lakh each for relevant information in respect of their present whereabouts. The process of investigation in such a serious case of grave nature has undoubtedly been impeded because of their long abscondence. In this context by referring to the relevant column of the chargesheet, it is also argued by him that the further investigation of this case has been kept open and the same is continuing for the purpose of collection of further evidence as also for the arrest of absconding chargesheeted accused as per the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC. The further evidence collected in course of further investigation of this case will also be forwarded by filing Supplementary chargesheet before the court. 5. THEREFORE, against such factual scenario even though chargesheet showing the petitioner and other 7 co-accused as absconders has been filed, further investigation in the present case is on and for all practical purposes it is imperative for the Investigating Agency to collect more materials in this regard. According to him, custodial interrogation of this long absconding accused become essential to facilitate further investigation in the right direction taking the dimension and magnitude of the case into consideration in its proper perspective. 6. HE has, therefore, concluded his submission by asserting that the benefit of pre-arrest bail cannot be extended to the accused petitioner in the backdrop of afore-mentioned circumstances. We have carefully taken into consideration the rival submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of contents of CD. 7. IT is alleged in the FIR inter alia that an armed Camp was set up at the house of Rathin Dandapath at Netai village under P.S. Lalgarh, Dist. Paschim Medinipore and the armed personnel of the Camp and others compelled the villagers to do manual work and undergo rigorous arms training. 8. ON 6.1.11 such arms training was imparted to the villagers, when some of them fell sick, they denied to undergo training on 7.1.11 and assembled in front of the Camp at Netai to register their protest. At that point of time, indiscriminate firing was made at the villagers from the rooftop of the armed Camp. Consequently, 9 villagers died at the spot while 28 others suffered injuries. At that point of time, indiscriminate firing was made at the villagers from the rooftop of the armed Camp. Consequently, 9 villagers died at the spot while 28 others suffered injuries. Initially, the case was investigated by the CID. Subsequently, the case was, however, taken over by the CBI vide order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta. In course of investigation the agency recorded confessional statement of some of the accused as also statements of witnesses in terms of Section 161 CrPC. Statements of several witnesses were also recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The Investigating Agency seized incriminating arms and ammunitions and also collected reports of ballistic experts. 9. ON completion of investigation chargesheet Under Section 120B/148/149/326/307/302 IPC read with Section 25/27 Arms Act was submitted against 20 persons. Out of them, 12 accused are in judicial custody while rest 8 accused including the present petitioner have been shown as absconders in the Chargesheet. 10. ON a very close scrutiny of the chargesheet itself it reveals that 20 accused chargesheeted in this case can conveniently be categorized under two groups on the basis of materials and circumstances on record as are available in the CD. ONe group consisting of accused No.11,12.13,14,15,16,17 and 18 as per serial no. of the chargesheet allegedly guarded the armed Camp and unlawfully assembled at Netai Camp in terms of direction of the other group comprising of the rest of the accused including the accused petitioner who criminally conspired to set up armed Camps. On 7.1.11 accused No.11 to 18 equipped with illegal fire arms opened indiscriminate firing upon the villagers who assembled in front of Netai Camp. All these eight accused are in Judicial custody but the rest 12 accused including the petitioner who have been absconding for a pretty long time, however, could not be interrogated to investigate their possible role/involvement in causing carnage at Netai. 11. TRUE, 3 criminal cases were registered with Lalgarh Police Station in the early part of 2009 at the instance of the petitioner. Out of these three cases one was against unknown Maoists miscreants while the rest 2 were against 12 FIR named accused in total against whom no Maoists activities had been alleged. 11. TRUE, 3 criminal cases were registered with Lalgarh Police Station in the early part of 2009 at the instance of the petitioner. Out of these three cases one was against unknown Maoists miscreants while the rest 2 were against 12 FIR named accused in total against whom no Maoists activities had been alleged. At any rate, we are unable to find any nexus between the police cases filed by the petitioner in the month of March, April and July 2009 and the present criminal case wherein he has been nailed as one of the conspirators in connection with an incident of killing as many as 9 innocent villagers on 7.1.11. 12. ON a meticulous appreciation of the contents of case diary certain facts and some incriminating circumstances which cannot be circumvented emerge as under:- (a) It was a dreadful scene of carnage at Netai on 7.1.11. (b) The accused petitioner is an active member of a team which had set up the arms Camps at Netai, Karar and other adjacent villages. (c) The ostensible object of the armed Camp at Netai as it appears was to combat the maoist menace and to impart arms training. (d) A group of unauthorized armed men opened fire indiscriminately from the rooftop of the house of Rathin Dandapath aiming at innocent villagers assembled in front of the said illegal armed Camp to register their protest against compulsory arms training and thereby causing catastrophic losses of precious human lives. (e) Out of 20 persons involved in this criminal case, 12 accused are in Judicial custody. Mr. Mukherjee also did not dispute the petitioners role in the matter of setting up Camps for the purpose of combating the maoist menace. The complaint is that the carnage took place at the hands of the persons manning the Camp. Howsoever laudable the object might have been the fact remains that the so called saviours allegedly turned into killers. In such a case in the interest of investigation the need to interrogate the petitioner in custody cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected with the observation that the duration of police custody, if any, should not be unnecessarily lengthened. It is clarified that the observation made herein are prima facie in nature. 13. CRM 5023 of 2011 thus stands dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected with the observation that the duration of police custody, if any, should not be unnecessarily lengthened. It is clarified that the observation made herein are prima facie in nature. 13. CRM 5023 of 2011 thus stands dismissed. 14. URGENT Xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all usual formalities.