Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct.30 In Re: An Application Under ... vs In Re: Bimal Murmu & Ors on 31 August, 2021
CRA No.132 of 2019
with
31.08.21
CRAN No.2 of 2019 (Old CRAN No.2983 of 2019)
(S.R.) (Via video conference)
Sl.20
Ct.30 In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
And
In re: Bimal Murmu & Ors. ... appellants/petitioners.
Mr. Tapan Datta Gupta
Mr. Parvej Anam ... for the appellants/petitioners.
Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Sr. Govt. Adv.
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal
Mr. Bitasak Banerjee ... for the State.
This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
pending appeal against an order of conviction and sentence. The
appellants have been convicted of offences punishable under Sections
498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Datta Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the appellants
submits that the appellants are in custody for more than six years two
months and have thus undergone a substantial part of the term
imprisonment of ten years. There is also no possibility towards early
disposal of the appeal and in view thereof, the appellants' sentence may be
suspended and they may be enlarged on bail.
He further submits that there is no evidence on record, particularly,
against the appellant nos.2 and 3. There are fatal inconsistencies in the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Even after noting such
inconsistencies, the learned court below had disregarded the same,
without any cogent reason. It would be explicit from the records that all
the persons were participating in a local festival and were in an inebriated
condition. The ingredients of the offences alleged do not stand established
against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. In view thereof, it cannot
be said that the appellants have no chance of success in the present
appeal.
As no one appears on behalf of the State, this Court engages Mr.
Sudip Ghose, learned senior Government Advocate. Let such engagement
of Mr. Ghosh be regularised.
Mr. Ghosh opposes the appellants' prayer and submits that
sequence of events clearly establish the complicity of the appellants. The
judgment impugned does not suffer from any patent infirmity. The
circumstances involved and the depositions of the eyewitnesses
consistently point towards the guilt of the appellants.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and have assessed the quality of the evidence as recorded by the
learned court below. The appellants have already undergone a substantial
part of the term imprisonment and there is also no possibility towards
early disposal of the appeal. On an overall appreciation of the facts and
evidence on record, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the appellants
may be able to demonstrate at the hearing of the appeal that they had no
major involvement.
Under such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the dispute and culpability of the appellant, in our
opinion, it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence and to grant
bail to the appellants.
For these reasons, we allow the application being CRAN No.2 of
2019 (Old CRAN No.2983 of 2019), suspend the sentence and direct that
pending hearing of the appeal, the appellants, namely, 1. Bimal Murmu,
2. Netai Murmu and 3. Amir Murmu , shall be released on bail upon
furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount
each, one of them must be local subject to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda with a further condition that
the appellant no.1 shall meet with the officer-in-charge of Gazole Police
Station once a fortnight on and from 14 th September, 2021 until further
orders.
The application being CRAN No.2 of 2019 (Old CRAN No.2983 of
2019 is, accordingly, disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
