Raju Paswan @ Raja Paswan v. The State Of West Bengal

19.02.2025 Item no. 35.

Court No.29.

AB (Rejected) CRM (DB) 76 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Liluah P.S. Case No. 282 of 2023 Dated 18.06.23 under Sections 304/302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Raju Paswan @ Raja Paswan ......Petitioner.

Mr. M. Chatterjee Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty Mr. Tushar Hazra Mr. Arindam Pauli ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Dipankar Pramanik ......for the State.

Dictated by Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, other accused persons have been granted bail by the learned Trial Court/Juvenile Justice Board. Investigation is complete and as such, there is no need for further custodial detention of the petitioner. 2.

Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He has drawn our attention to the statement of the wife of the victim recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. 2023, post mortem report and also other materials in the case diary. He has also submitted that after rejection of his anticipatory bail prayer, the present petitioner surrendered before the concerned Trial Court

after 9 months. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond.

3.

We have considered the materials on record. The wife of the petitioner has clearly implicated this petitioner and others. We do not find any order of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench whereby bail was granted in favour of any of the accused persons. There are sufficient incriminating materials in the CD and we do find merits in the contention of the learned Advocate for the State that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of his absconsion.

4.

In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.

5.

The prayer for bail is rejected.

6.

CRM (DB) 76 of 2025 is dismissed.

7.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)