Abdul Basir @ Basiruddin Sk @ Basir Sk v. State Of West Bengal

05.03.2025 Item No.11 Court No. 26 CHC Rejected CRM (DB) 4015 of 2024 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bhagwangola Police Station Case No. 362 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

-AndIn the matter of : Abdul Basir @ Basiruddin Sk @ Basir Sk ... ...Petitioner Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Advocate Md. G. N. Imrohi, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mrs. Faria Hossain, Ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Amanul Islam, Advocate ... ...For the State

1. Report as called for by the order dated February 17, 2025 filed in Court be taken on record.

2. Prayer of bail of the petitioner is on the ground of the petitioner being physically challenged. Relying upon the disability certificate it is the contention of the petitioner that, petitioner suffered from 80% disability. By reason of such disability of the leg, petitioner is not in a position to stand up. The fatal blow was on the head of the deceased. Given the physical disability certificate of the petitioner, petitioner was not the person who inflicted such blow on the head of the deceased.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, eyewitnesses implicate the petitioner in the murder.

Eyewitnesses saw the petitioner to participate actively in the assault leading to the murder.

4. We called for a report from the State on February 17, 2025 as to the claim of physical disability of the petitioner.

5. Report submitted in Court be taken on record. The opinion of the Doctor with regard to the physical disability is that, the petitioner suffers from Congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV). Medical opinion is that neglected CTEV is a type of permanent physical impairment. The maximum percentage entitled for CTEV (B/L) is 80%. However, the Doctor who gave such medical opinion is of the view that, actual percentage of disability of the petitioner could not be ascertained without physical appearance of the petitioner.

6. Petitioner stands implicated in murder. The physical impairment that petitioner speaks of, may not be a complete impadiment in the petitioner participating in the assault of inflicting blow on the deceased.

7. Considering the materials on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

9. CRM(DB) 4015 of 2024 is dismissed.

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