Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sahabuddin Sheikh @ Sahabuddin vs Unknown on 16 August, 2021
1 16.08.2021
ns
Court No.1
C.R.A. 576 of 2018
With
I.A. CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old CRAN 541 of 2019)
With
I.A. CRAN 2 of 2020 (Old CRAN 2388 of 2020)
In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed on 16.03.2021 in connection with
Kotwali (Jalpaiguri) P.S. Case No.613 of 2019 dated 22.09.2019
under section 22 (c )/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
And
In the matter of : Sahabuddin Sheikh @ Sahabuddin
Sk. & Anr.
...petitioners/ appellants.
Mr. Saryati Datta,
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta,
Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy ...for appellants.
Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Ld. A.P.P.,
Mr. Manoranjan Mahata ...for State.
Re: I.A. CRAN 1 of 2019 (Old CRAN 541 of 2019)
Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners/appellants. He submits, his clients are innocent but
convicted by judgment dated 17th September, 2018. The sentence
against them be suspended and his clients enlarged on bail pending
hearing of the appeal.
On query from Court he submits, the incident took place on
11th June, 2009. His clients absconded but were apprehended on 5 th
February, 2018. Subsequent thereto and prior to the judgment,
they had applied for bail by CRM 1891 of 2018, rejected on 18 th
May, 2018 by a Division Bench of this Court. He submits further,
there were in total eight accused. Three died during trial and the
other three had separate judgment passed against them and
pursuant thereto enlarged on bail. His clients are similarly situate
as those who have been granted bail.
Mr. Sur, learned advocate, Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of State opposes the prayer. He submits,
petitioners absconded for nine years necessitating separate
proceeding and judgment in their regard, after they were
apprehended. The conviction is under section 302/34 IPC. They
should not be granted bail pending hearing of the appeal.
Mr. Sengupta referred to the judgment, impugned in the
appeal, in seeking to demonstrate that his clients are similarly
situate as those persons who have been granted bail, pending
appeal. We were unable to find any similarity as appearing from the
judgment dated 17th September, 2018. We have also perused order
dated 19th September, 2013 made by coordinate Bench in CRAN
1254 of 2013 granting bail to the three other accused who were
arrested and tried earlier for the same offence. There is no
indication in said order to give impression that petitioners are in
similar position as those who were granted bail thereby. We notice
and reproduce an extract from order dated 18 th September, 2018 of
sentence.
"Considering the circumstances of this case and
impact of the conduct of the convicts upon the
society, the benefit under section 3 and 4 of the
Probation of the Offenders Act is not extended to
the convicts."
We are unable to allow the prayer of petitioners.
Rejected.
CRAN 541 of 2019 is disposed of.
Mr. Sengupta prays and we direct that hearing of the
appeal be expedited by preparation of paper books.
Liberty to mention.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
