S.Gangaiah v. State (U.T. Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (M)/3/2025 S. Gangaiah Vs State (U. T. of Andaman and Nicobar Islands) Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Ajith Prasad ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State November 28, 2025 [AKB] Item No.7 The petitioner in this case has prayed for bail. The petitioner has been arrested in the night between 29.03.2025 and 30.03.2025 pursuant to an FIR being Diglipur PS Case No. 24 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The police has submitted charge sheet dated 25.06.2025 in this case against the petitioner along with all other accused persons under the above stated provisions of law. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned Senior Counsel has represented the petitioner.
He has elaborately submitted as to how, according to the petitioner, a perfunctory investigation has been done against the petitioner and a fanciful story based on no evidence has been put forth in the charge-sheet. He says as per record the FIR has been lodged on 01.04.2025 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, whereas wife of the deceased has filed missing report on 30.3.2025 itself. That the police has detained the petitioner in
the night between 29.03.2025 and 30.3.2025, though has recorded date of his arrest as 02.04.2025. That, by this way the petitioner was made to suffer illegal detention by police. It has been further submitted that the foundation of investigation against the petitioner is his own statement given in custody of police, that too which is not a valid and lawful one, hence the same has got no credence, worth or value as a viable piece of evidence in the eye of law.
Initially the learned Senior Counsel challenged the so called evidence mentioned in the charge-sheet as having been collected during investigation, due to absence of any clinical and biological examination report or digital evidence being produced in support of the same. A supplementary chargesheet incorporating those has been filed in the Trial Court on 27.11.2025. The same has been more vociferously attacked by Mr. Kabir, on the ground that DNA report does never implicate the petitioner, rather exonerates him. He has taken this Court to the minutes of the report to show as to why the petitioner understands mismatch with him to be gross and impactful. According to Mr.
Kabir, the narrative of the police in the form of report are different from the actual report of the clinical or digital examination, which is evident from the documents as corroborated in the supplementary charge sheet, by the police. He has raised serious doubts about the translated copy of the call records produced by police.
on and raised objections that Close Circuit Television footage though relied upon in the charge-sheet, have not been produced in Court.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, the evidence so far brought on record against the present petitioner is of such nature as most likely to exonerate him from the alleged charges leveled in this case. He says that at best those can be used against the petitioner regarding charges of removal destruction and disappearance of evidence. He says that the petitioner has been behind the bars for more than seven months and there may not be any further necessity to keep him like that. Therefore he insists that pending trial of the case, the petitioner may be granted bail.
State is represented by Mr. Karmakar, learned Public Prosecutor who has raised strong objection to the prayer of the petitioner for bail. He has categorically submitted that the role of the petitioner is that of a conspirator in the entire scenario of murder of the victim. He has emphasized that implication of the petitioner is established from the CCTV footage and other incriminating circumstances, such as the two cars involved in the incident and used for carrying the accused persons and removing the dead body, belong to the present petitioner; that, the place where the dead body has been set ablaze with the intention to remove evidence is an under construction hotel building, the premises and the building belonging to the present petitioner. He has further relied on the telephonic conversation of the petitioner with the other co-accused persons. It is
submitted further that necessary prayer has already been made before the learned Trial Judge for direction for collection of voice sample and examination thereof. Learned Public Prosecutor has also placed strong reliance as to the CCTV footage, which, according to him not only proves the petitioners involvement as clear as the daylight, but also helps in creating the complete chain of circumstances, leading to murder of the victim. He submits that the original content of the CCTV footage is duly preserved in a hard disc and made part of the Court's record in the Trial Court. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the criminal track report of the petitioner may be a relevant consideration in this case as the petitioner has already been convicted in as many as 60 criminal cases. Therefore, his criminal and antecedent is also a fact relied on by the prosecution in this case.
Therefore, according to the State, the petitioner's involvement in the crime is sufficiently on record. That at this stage, his release may jeopardize the trial and grossly expose the possibility of the witnesses being influenced by the petitioner or evidences being manipulated by him. Hence, Mr. Karmakar learned Public Prosecutor has insisted for dismissal of this case.
The Court is constrained to find that whatever detailed discrepancies have been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, may be relevant material/argument, to be advanced before the Trial Court at the stage of trial. At present this court, while considering the bail prayer of the petitioner, is more concerned
with the fact that the nature of offence as alleged against the petitioner is of sufficient gravity, more so in view of the exhaustive corroborating materials in the form of clinical and digital examination reports, brought by the police before the Trial Court. The trial court would be authorized to examine the potential and evidentiary value of those in the trial, whereas this Court while considering the petitioner's bail prayer, is not competent to adjudicate as regards the same. It can only be said that in an event when such exhaustive corroborative materials are available and those are of such nature not to shock the conscience of the Court due to its gross improbability or falsehood, the Court is driven to record its prima facie satisfaction as regards the same.
The obvious corollary is the further finding with regard to the seriousness of the offence alleged which prompts the Court to be alive to the necessity that a fair trial be held and concluded in the instant case by affording no opportunity to the accused persons, including the present petitioner to evade the trial by any means or influence the same in any manner whatsoever.
All as above, prompts this Court to reject the petitioner's prayer for bail in this case.
Hence, bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
CRM(M)/3/2025 is dismissed.
Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)