← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (DB)/743/2022dismissed

Md Saddam v. State Of West Bengal

2022-03-22Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De2 pages

22.03.2022 Serial no.55 [Dd] (Bail Rejected) CRM (DB) 743 of 2022 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with G.R. Case No. 4886 of 2021 corresponding to Raina Police Station Case No. 292 of 2021 dated 23.10.2021 under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Charge Sheet submitted under Sections 302/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

-AndIn the matter of : Md Saddam ... ...Petitioner Mr. Angsuman Chakraborty, Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Saha, Advocates ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Pramanick, Advocates ... ...For the State Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Suchismita Dutta, Advocates ... ...For the de facto complainant Petitioner seeks bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 142 days. No test identification parade was held so far as the petitioner is concerned. The police filed charge sheet. Therefore, custodial detention of the petitioner is not required. He submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The only nexus was that the petitioner acted as a broker in respect of a vehicle which was allegedly used in the incident. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is the mastermind in the incident. He refers to the postmortem report. He submits that the victim received knife injuries also apart from bullet injury. He

submits that the petitioner was provided the vehicle for the incident along with the knife used. He refers to the telephonic call between the maternal uncle of the petitioner and another person with regard to sale of the vehicle used. The de facto complainant is represented.

Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein as prima facie transpiring from the materials in the case diary, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (DB) 743 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)