Shaikh Sirajuddin v. The State Of West Bengal

14.

27-09-2024 (ct. no.28) debajyoti (allowed) CRM (DB) 2979 of 2024 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bankura Sadar Police Station Case No.428 of 2023 dated 02-122023 under Sections 406/409/417/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

- A n d - In the matter of : Shaikh Sirajuddin .... Petitioner.

Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. Arkaprabho Roy, Mr. Anish Roy, Mr. Biswajit Mal, Mr. Soujanyo Pattanayak ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Eshita Dutta ... For the State.

Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

The petitioner says that he has been falsely implicated. He is in custody for about seven months. Investigation is complete. His further custodial detention is unnecessary.

The case concerns the 2012 Regional Level Selection Test of the School Service Commission (SSC). The panel prepared pursuant to such test, expired in 2015. The petitioner's wife, who is a co-accused in this case, did not succeed in the examination. Hence, she was not empanelled.

However, she was appointed as a Sanskrit teacher in classes 9 and 10 of a school in 2019.

The State says that there was no Office Memo or Officer Order on the basis of which such appointment could have been granted. In any event, the petitioner's wife had failed the Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET). The appointment of the petitioner's wife was obviously procured by misusing the petitioner's office as Chairman of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Northern and Western Region. The petitioner, therefore, according to the State, misused his office to reap benefit for his wife. The State strongly opposes the petitioner's prayer for bail. Learned Public Prosecutor says that given the nature of the crime and the deleterious effect it has on the society as a whole, the petitioner's prayer for bail should not be allowed.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. We must keep in mind that still bail is the rule and jail is the exception. A citizen is not to be lightly deprived of his/her personal liberty. The general grounds for refusing bail are the nature and gravity of the offence read with the possibility of the accused person absconding if enlarged on bail and also the possibility of the accused person tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Further, if necessary for the purpose of investigation, an accused may be detained in custody. We must remind ourselves that bail must not be withheld by way of punishing an accused person who is yet to be convicted. The law of this country has always been to the effect that one is presumed innocent until he is proved to be guilty.

In the present case, we prima facie find that there may be incriminating material against the petitioner. If the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, the petitioner will be punished in accordance with law. However, we do not see any real possibility of the petitioner fleeing.

person that he is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Investigation is complete. We do not see what useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any further.

Considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the view that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary.

Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner, namely, Shaikh Sirajuddin, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall not leave the district of Bankura, until further orders and shall meet the Inspector-in-Charge/Officer-inCharge of the jurisdictional police station once in every week, until further orders.

In the event the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.

The application for bail being CRM (DB) 2979 of 2024 is, thus, allowed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)