Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 209 (CAL)

In the matter of : Arjun Singh v. .

2017-02-22

ASHIM KUMAR ROY, DEBI PROSAD DEY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. In connection with Narkeldanga police station case no. 186 of 2016 this bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended over the self-same incident at the behest of the father of this petitioner, a counter case has been lodged against the defacto complainant of the present case Mukesh Jadav and four others which gave rise to the Narkeldanga police station case no. 193 of 2016. It is then submitted in the fateful incident, one Kaulesh Roy alias Jadav, belonging to the side of the de facto complainant of the instant case, while was succumbed to his injuries, the present petitioner sustained severe knife injuries on his abdomen, spine and limbs, but due to timely medical intervention, he luckily survived after prolonged treatment. 3. Then he contended that all the accused in the counter case have been enlarged on bail by the court below. He then added now, in the present case investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted but till date no charge has been framed and March 2, 2017 has been fixed for production and all other charge-sheeted co-accused are on bail and the present petitioner is in custody for 215 days. It is submitted that his prayer for bail be considered on parity with his co-accused and on the fact the accused in the counter case, by whom he was assaulted are on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State has however, not disputed the above contention. But vehemently contended that this petitioner has a criminal antecedent and he has been charge-sheeted in connection with that case and therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail, even on the ground of parity. 5. The counsel for the de facto complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that a software engineer was killed by the present petitioner and his associates. He further contended that petitioner has a criminal antecedent and in connection with that case, he has been charge-sheeted. He then pointed out that seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner the de facto complainant of that case moved an application being CRM 354 of 2017. 6. He further contended that petitioner has a criminal antecedent and in connection with that case, he has been charge-sheeted. He then pointed out that seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner the de facto complainant of that case moved an application being CRM 354 of 2017. 6. On careful scrutiny of the materials on record we find that the petitioner was released on bail on November 26, 2013 in connection with Entally P.S. Case No. 334 of 2014 (as per averment in the application for cancellation of bail CRM 354 of 2017), but until January 13, 2017, no application was moved by the de facto complainant seeking cancellation of his bail. We find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that in order to prejudice us on the merit of this bail application now, this application for cancellation of bail has been filed. It is true as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel, who now appearing in this application on behalf of the de facto complainant, is the Advocate, who also filed the application of cancellation of bail, as above, on behalf of the de facto complainant of that case nearly 2 years 2 months after. 7. Admittedly, the present petitioner sustained severe injuries on his abdomen, spine and limbs (injury report at page-56 of the case diary) and virtually his liberty was curtailed on and from 6th of June, 2016. The investigation has already been completed and all other accused persons have been released on bail. 8. Admittedly, all the accused persons of the counter case are on bail and they have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. After going through the statements of the witnesses we find that four persons were named by the witnesses as the persons, who had inflicted injuries on the person of Kaulesh Roy. Remaining persons have been released on bail. The present petitioner is standing on the same footing with other accused persons, who are on bail. 9. Mere pendency of a case against the present petitioner is not sufficient to curtail the liberty of the petitioner. It be noted that according to the FSL report of the viscera of deceased Kaulesh Roy, Alcohol was found both in viscera and blood. A copy of the report filed in court be taken on record. 9. Mere pendency of a case against the present petitioner is not sufficient to curtail the liberty of the petitioner. It be noted that according to the FSL report of the viscera of deceased Kaulesh Roy, Alcohol was found both in viscera and blood. A copy of the report filed in court be taken on record. The projection of the prosecution that Kaulesh Roy being a software engineer had been to the place of occurrence by chance presumably is not correct, which would be evident from the first information report of the present case, which was lodged by the accused in the other case, Mukesh Yadav. 10. Now, going through the first information report lodged by one Mukesh Yadav, an accused in the counter case (Narkeldanga Police Station case No. 193 of 2016), we find that after the quarrel started between the two groups over parking of truck, loaded with building materials, the victim Koulesh Yadav had been to the spot and called him over phone and during the infighting between the two groups, he sustained injury and died. We have also gone through the statements of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence at pages-15, 20 and 21 as also through the statement of another eyewitness at page-85. Going through the same, it appears to us that during an in fighting between the two groups, over business rivalry, the victim sustained injury and died. 11. Having regard to the facts as above, and considering the facts that two of the accused Mukhesh Yadav and Abhimanyu Pathak in the counter case (Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 193 of 2016) after their arrest, are now on bail and co-accused in the present case similarly situated with the petitioner and the petitioner’s length of detention in custody for about 242 days and no case is made out from the side of the State that even after submission of charge-sheet, his further detention is necessary or if released on bail, he is likely to abscond, we allow this application. 12. 12. Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Sealdah on a bond of Rs.30,000/- of two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further condition that after release he shall not enter within the jurisdiction of the Narkeldanga Police Station, as also within the territorial limit of all other police stations situated on the radius of the Narkeldanga Police Station, until further order, except for the purpose of attending the Court proceedings. 13. It is further directed that before release, the petitioner shall furnish his residential address, where he shall stay after his release from jail to the Court concerned as also to the investigating officer of the case and he shall meet the officer in charge of that police station, within whose limit he shall stay, thrice in a week, until further order. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.