Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/4628/2023rejected

Biman Mondal @ Sakil Rana Mondal And ANR v. State Of West Bengal

2023-12-13Honble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash,Hon'Ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen3 pages

C.R.M. (A) 4628 of 2023 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hariharpara Police Station Case No. 221 of 2015 dated 09.06.2015 under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act (corresponding to G.R Case No. 2254 of 2015).

And In the matter of: Biman Mondal @ Sakil Rana Mondal & Anr. ....petitioners 13.12.2023 M/L SL. 51 Court No. 29 Aloke Mr. S. Das Mahapatra Mr. Ali Ahasan Alamgir Ms. Soma Mal Ms. Rabia Khatoon Ms. June Modal ...for the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Manoranjan Mahata ...for the State.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. In course of his argument learned Counsel for the petitioners draws our attention to the judgment dated 23.12.2020 as passed in ST No. 7(1) of 2017 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad whereby and whereunder some of the coaccused persons have been acquitted by the said Trial Court. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the said acquitted persons and the present petitioners have been charge-sheeted in connection with selfsame cause the said acquittal may be considered as a supervening circumstances for entertaining the instant application for anticipatory bail for the second time.

3. Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present.

4. We are in respectful disagreement with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the acquittal of the other co-accused persons can be considered as supervening circumstances in an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which has been filed for the second time, and while the petitioners are still at largae.

5. The present petitioners being absconding accused cannot take advantage of the acquittal of the co-accused persons as for the petitioners only the process of the Court and Law has suffered a lot.

6. Regard being had to such facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

7. The application being CRM (A) 4628 of 2023 is dismissed. (Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)