Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sukumar Makal @ Bablu vs The State Of West Bengal on 1 December, 2021
01.12.2021
Item No.02
suman
Ct.42
(Via Video Conference)
CRA 66 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN 494 of 2020)
With
CRAN 2 of 2021
In Re: An application for bail in connection with
appeal under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with CRA 66 of 2020.
And
In the matter of: Sukumar Makal @ Bablu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Suman De
...for the appellant
Ms. Faria Hossain
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
...for the State
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with default
clause for committing offence punishable under
Section 373/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was
also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two
years with fine and default clause for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the Immoral
Trafficking Act.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for
the petitioner that the co-convicts filed separate
appeals against the same judgment and order of
conviction and sentence and they were granted
bail by this Court in CRAN 1 of 2020 and CRAN 2
of 2021 vide order dated 13th January, 2021 and
26th November, 2021. Even the owner of the
hotel-cum-brothel where raid was conducted and
girls engaged in immoral trafficking with the
customers were arrested, were also granted bail
by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further
submitted that according to P.W.13 the petitioner
is the customer. However, on perusal of page 67
and subsequent pages of the impugned
judgment it is ascertained that the petitioner is
one of the managers of the said hotel-cum-
brothel.
When owner of the brothel and its co-
manager were granted bail, the petitioner being
on same footing is entitled to the benefit of bail.
Therefore, the petitioner shall be enlarged
on bail of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) with two sureties of like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haldia, Purba Medinipur with
further condition that if on bail he must visit the
Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional P.S. once
in a moth during pendency of the appeal. He is
also directed to file an affidavit before the
Officer-in-Charge stating his residential address
where he would stay during pendency of the
appeal and he will be available in person, if
necessary, in course of hearing of the instant
appeal. If the petitioner violates any of the
above conditions, the order of bail shall be
cancelled without further reference to the Bench.
CRAN 2 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.
It appears from the order dated 26th
November, 2021 passed in CRAN 2 of 2021 in
CRA 23 of 2020 that on the self-same judgment
and order of conviction and sentence, another
accused/convict namely Sk. Pocha @ Dukha filed
an appeal before the Division Bench which is
registered as CRA 5 of 2020. Therefore, the
instant appeal ought to be heard by the same
Division Bench in order to avoid conflicting
decision. Accordingly, the record of appeal be
placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench to tag
the instant appeal with CRA 5 of 2020 for
necessary direction.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
