Abdul Majid @ Md Abdul Majid And ORS v. State Of West Bengal

12.08.2022 Serial no. 29 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected) CRM (A) 3886 of 2022 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with G. R. No. 117 of 2022 arising out of Chopra Police Station Case No. 31 of dated 11.01.2022 under Sections 447/143/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(i)(a)/27/35 Arms Act, 1959.

-AndIn the matter of : Abdul Majid @ Md. Abdul Majid & Ors. ... ...Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ms. Eshita Dutta, Advocates ... ...For the State Petitioners pray for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there was a free fight in the locality. The family members of the petitioners were also injured. Other co-accuseds were granted anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Court. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioners are named by the eye-witnesses recording statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be involved in the incident. Firearms were used. One of the injured suffered grievous injury. He suffered bullet injury. There are materials in the case dairy suggesting that several persons were injured. One of them suffered grievous hurt. All the petitioners are named in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to be the assailants. Weapons including firearms were used in assaulting the victim.

The two persons who were enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Court are not named in the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. CRM (A) 3886 of 2022 is dismissed.

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