Bikram Aditya v. State Of West Bengal

16.10.2020 S.List no.8 Bpg & srm CRM 7879 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Barabazar Police Station Case no.68 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 under Sections341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960.

In the matter of: Bikram Aditya.

...Petitioner.

Mr. Santanu Chatterjee ...for the Petitioner. Mr.Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta.

...for the State.

The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

This is an application for bail in which the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not an FIR named accused. His name is conspired from the statement of the co-accused. Nothing was recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner resides at Jharkhand and the incident occurred in Kolkata. He submits that there were some discrepancies over the hospitalisation of the victim leading to the ultimately death of the victim. He prays for bail as he has been in custody for over 400 days specially because the charge-sheet has been submitted and no further custodial interrogation would be necessary.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the State hands over the case diary and relies on the seizure list, statement of the accused persons, the post-mortem report and the injury report. He also relies on the call details. According to Mr.

Chowdhury, the confessional statement of the petitioner establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Having considered the materials on record and the relevant portions of the case diary, we do not feel that it is a fit case for grant of bail. The prayer for bail is rejected. CRM 7879 of 2020 is disposed of.

(Harish Tandon, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)