Md. Nasir v. The State Of West Bengal

08.11.2024 sdas rejected C.R.M.(A) No. 3839 of 2024 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Manikchak Police Station Case No. 406 of 2024 dated 09.06.2024 under Sections 341/325/326/302/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Md. Nasir ....... petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Samir Kumar Jana Mr. Dipankar Guha Ms. Dhanasree Biswas Ms. Poulami Bose ....for the petitioner Mrs. Shaila Afrin Mr. Karan Bapuli ... for the State Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. Mahabir Rahaman Mr. Akash Sarkar .... for the defacto complainant 1.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits he is the anchal prodhan of a political party. He has been falsely implicated in a number of cases going to his political affiliation. Allegations against him are general and omnibus. Co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail in CRM (A) 2594 of 2024. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail. 2.

Learned Counsel for the State and de facto complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. They submit petitioner has criminal antecedents and prayer for

anticipatory bail of co-accused Md. Nasiruddin was turned down by this Court. Petitioner stands on the same footing with the said accused.

3.

We have considered the materials on record.

Petitioner is a political personality. Number of cases are pending against him. One of such case was registered in 2018 alleging culpable homicide. He was arrested in the said case. Thereafte, a number of cases have been registered against him. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclose he is one of the members of the unlawful assembly who had assaulted the victim resulting in his death. He stands on the same footing with co-accused Md. Nasiruddin whose prayer for anticipatory bail was turned down. He does not stand on the same footing with the co-accused who have been granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)