Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 514 (CAL)

In the matter of: Jagjit Singh v. .

2017-06-01

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this court for bail after 75 days of detention. He was arrested in this case on March 19, 2017 from New Delhi and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate pursuant to a transit remand granted by the said court. After his prayer for bail was turned down on April 25, 2017, petitioner had preferred the instant application for bail. At the time of hearing of the application for bail, one of us (Joymalya Bagchi, J) had observed that graver offences had not been added to the FIR and direction was given to add Sections 307, 326, 109, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 51D, 56 of the Excise Act and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act to the array of offences. Pursuant to such direction, the aforesaid non-bailable offences were added to the FIR and the matter was placed before the Division Bench in view of the fact that the added offences involve maximum imprisonment for more than seven years. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there has not been any further development in the investigation after addition of the aforesaid sections and the materials on record do not justify further detention of the petitioner. He further submits that the allegations in the FIR relate to a skirmish which took place in a bar-cum-restaurant owned by the petitioner and the said skirmish was a spontaneous one without prior concert or preparation. It is also submitted that the injuries as transpiring from the medical records do not justify the addition of Sections 307/326 IPC. Learned Additional Advocate General along with learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He was carrying on immoral activities in various establishments which were licenced under the Bengal Excise Act and licenses of such premises have, accordingly, suspended. Criminal cases have also been registered against him under various offences including offences under Immoral Traffic Act. Petitioner has since been shown arrested in those cases. In view of the gravity of the allegations particularly the act on the part of the petitioner in conspiring with other accused persons in causing the grievous assault, it is submitted that it would be inappropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. In view of the gravity of the allegations particularly the act on the part of the petitioner in conspiring with other accused persons in causing the grievous assault, it is submitted that it would be inappropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 . We have considered the submissions of the respective parties in the light of the materials on record. With regard to the extent of involvement of the petitioner in the instant case it is an admitted fact that he is not the principal assailant. Statements have, however, been recorded in the course of investigation under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had assured the principal assailant of protection and/or harbouring and thereby induced them to commit the alleged crime. We have also perused the injury report of the victim, Md. Zoheb Khan who was initially given treatment at a government hospital and thereafter admitted at Kothari Medical Centre from 12.03.2017 to 18.03.2017. From the medical records it appears that he had not been admitted for six days and the injuries on his person are only lacerated injuries without any fracture or internal wounds. Coming to the issue of criminal antecedents, it is true the petitioner has been implicated in cases involving offences under Immoral Traffic Act. We, however, find that he has already been shown arrested in these cases and he is presently in custody in those cases. It is also placed on record that the business places of the petitioner wherein alleged immoral activities were being carried on have been shut down. In view of such steps taken by the Investigating Agency, we are of the opinion that the propensity of the petitioner to perpetrate similar crimes have been adequately curbed in the interest of justice. Ratio in Ash Mohammad (supra) is factually distinguishable. In the said report, accused was the principal offender who had kidnapped and detained the victim. He was a history-sheeter with 30 criminal cases and, therefore, his propensity to indulge in similar crimes of kidnapping and extortion could not be wished away. Ratio in Ash Mohammad (supra) is factually distinguishable. In the said report, accused was the principal offender who had kidnapped and detained the victim. He was a history-sheeter with 30 criminal cases and, therefore, his propensity to indulge in similar crimes of kidnapping and extortion could not be wished away. In the present case, the nature of the allegations against the petitioner relates to illegal activities in connection with his bar-cum-restaurant business wherein his licenses have already been suspended by the orders passed by the excise authorities. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the propensity of the petitioner to perpetrate similar crimes has been adequately curbed and, therefore, the ratio in the aforesaid report is clearly distinguishable in the factual matrix of the case. Moreover, we are informed that he has also been shown arrested in those cases and is presently in detention in connection with such cases. Hence, we do feel that continuation of detention of the petitioner in such cases would not be in any way adversely affected by the grant of bail to the petitioner in the instant case which may be granted bearing in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the victim and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the present cases. We are, however, conscious of the background of the petitioner and, therefore, choose to restrict him in the event he is released on bail to stringent conditions. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner namely Jagjit Singh is released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/-, with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas subject to the condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bhowanipore Police Station without the express permission of the court below, save and except attending the court proceedings and shall meet the Officer-in-charge, Bhowanipore Police Station once in a week until further orders. The petitioner shall cooperate with the process of investigation and shall offer himself for interrogation as and when necessary and shall not tamper with evidence and/or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall cooperate with the process of investigation and shall offer himself for interrogation as and when necessary and shall not tamper with evidence and/or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever. We make it clear that the order of bail has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the light of the merits of the present case and shall not have any bearing with regard to similar prayers for bail that may be made by him in other cases wherein he has been shown arrested and needless to mention that such prayers for bail, if made, shall be decided on their respective merits and in accordance with law. The application for bail is thus allowed.