Rahul Dey And ANR v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

05.8.2024 Ct. No. 6 SL No. 45 SB C.R.M. (DB) 2055 of 2024 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 124 of 2021 dated 02.5.2021 under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 126 of 2021 dated 03.5.2021 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of: Rahul Dey & Anr.

Mr. Sourav Mondal Mr. Arijit Bhuiya Mr. Rony Mondal ... for the petitioners Mr. Amajit De. Spl. PP ....for CBI

1. Petitioners are in custody for two years and five months. They submit they were not named in the FIR. Mother of the victim, PW1, did not take their names as assailants in her statement before learned Magistrate. The only one witness, that is, mother of the victim has been examined in part. Presently proceedings have been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transfer Petition Criminal Diary No. 1537 of 2023. Prosecution proposes to examine 31 witnesses. There is no possibility of trial concluding in the near future. Accordingly, they pray for bail.

2. Learned lawyer appearing for CBI opposes the bail prayer. He submits petitioner and others formed an unlawful assembly and ransacked the house of the deceased. His mother and brother were also assaulted. Due to assault the victim succumbed to injuries. Mother of the victim has been partly examined. Brother of the victim is yet to be examined. If the petitioner is released on bail there is possibility the witnesses would be won over.

3. We have considered the materials on record. The case involves mob violence between political groups. It is alleged an irate mob attacked a party office and thereafter the residence of the deceased. FIR was lodged at the local police station wherein nobody was named. Owing to faction politics it is possible that the State police did not record the names of the assailants but the statement of mother of the victim was recorded before Magistrate does not name the petitioners as the assailants. Even in her deposition before Court apart from making general allegations no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioners. We have taken into consideration the statement of the brother of the victim before Magistrate. Though in his statement petitioners have been named, allegations against them are general and omnibus. Analysis of prior statements of these two eyewitnesses show a dichotomy with regard to involvement of the petitioners.

4. Apart from the aforesaid lacunae, petitioner has also make out a case for bail on the score of delay in trial. They are in custody for more than two and half years and proceedings have been stayed at the behest of the CBI before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On repeated queries nothing is placed on record to show that the petitioners had threatened witnesses during trial.

5. Under such circumstances, we are constrained to enlarge the petitioners on bail subject to conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner

whatsoever. On further condition while on bail petitioners shall not enter the Municipal limits of the city of Kolkata and provide address where they shall reside to the Investigating Agency and the Court below. They shall report to the Officer-in-charge of the jurisdictional police station where they shall reside. They shall not contact with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly via electronic means, until further orders.

7. In the event petitioners fail to appear before the Trial Court without any justifiable cause, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail without any further reference to this Court.

8. The application for bail is, thus, allowed and disposed of. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)