Md Khurram Nayeem v. State Of West Bengal

09.06.2022 sdas rejected C.R.M.(DB) 1441 of 2022 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 164 of 2022 dated 05.05.2022 under Sections 364A/386/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Md. Khurram Nayeem ..... petitioner Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. S.N. Islam Mr. Debapriya Majumder ... for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed, learned APP Mrs. Manasi Roy ... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there was a loan transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. They had gone out together for dinner. Disputes broke up over demand of money and entire amount has been recovered.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes prayer for bail.

We have considered the materials on record. Statements of witnesses prima facie show that the petitioner and other accused persons had abducted the de facto complainant and demanded ransom. Ransom money was paid and the petitioner has been identified by the person who paid ransom money to him at the time of test identification parade.

In view of the aforesaid materials on record prima facie implicating the petitioner in the alleged crime of kidnapping for ransom, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

C.R.M. 192 of 2018 In Re.: An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.01.2018 in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No. 136 of 2012 dated 03.07.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. And In Re : Rabish Kumar Upadhyay ..... petitioner Mr. Asraf Ali ... for the petitioner Mr. Debojyoti Deb ... for the State Having considered the materials on record prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of misappropriation of monies of the innocent depositors and the fact that the petitioner has absconded for a protracted period of time, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

The application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)