Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/4846/2022dismissed

Ninder Singh v. State Of West Bengal

2022-11-07Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

07.11.2022 Serial no. 57 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected) CRM (A) 4846 of 2022 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Andal Police Station Case No. 134 of 2022 dated April 19. 2022 under Sections 379/411/413/414/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30(II) of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 corresponding to GR Case No. 675 of 2022. -AndIn the matter of : Ninder Singh ... ...Petitioner Mr. Kunal Ganguly, Mr. Debajyoti Basu, Ms. Reshmi Mukherjee, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Apurba Kr. Datta, Advocate ... ...For the State Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded a contract by the Coal Company. The petitioner was discharging the obligations under the contract. Global Position System was installed in the vehicles that the petitioner was using for the purpose of transporting coal from one point to the other. Some of the vehicles diverted from the established route. Petitioner lodged a complaint. The petitioner also suffered a termination of the contract for carriage of coal from the Coal Company. Petitioner refers to the order passed by the writ Court. He submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated. Learned advocate appearing for the state submits that the petitioner is involved in coal smuggling. He refers to the

materials in the case diary. He submits that there are number of police cases as against the petitioner in different police stations involving the same allegations.

Apparently, the petitioner was awarded a contract by Coal Companies for transportation of coal. Apparently, the petitioner procured vehicle on hire for transportation. Vehicle engaged in such transportation under the petitioner was accosted by the authorities when it diverted from the established route. The driver of such vehicle implicates the petitioner.

In view of the gravity of the offence and the materials in the case diary and in view of the prima facie case as against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (A) 4846 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)