Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Brojendra Dhohre vs Unknown on 13 December, 2021
13.12.2021
Sl. No. 04.
Mithun
Ct.No.42.
IA No. CRAN/1/2021,CRAN/2/2021
In
CRA/75/2020.
(Via Video Conference)
In re: An application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2 nd Court,
Jangipur, Murshidabad in S.T.05(02)15, arising out of SSL
No.208/2014 in connection with G.R.Case No.129 of 2014
whereby convicting the appellant and others and sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence
punishable under Section 489B of the IPC and sentence in the
form of rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence
punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.
In the matter of : Brojendra Dhohre.
...Appellant.
Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv.
...for the State.
Re: - CRAN/2/2021
The instant application is by way of renewal of the prayer
of suspension of sentence and bail. It is submitted by Mr.
Sandip Chakrabarty, learned Advocate for the appellant that
initially the appellant was granted bail vide order dated 21 st
January, 2015. Subsequently, he violated the conditions of bail
and accordingly warrant of arrest was issued. It was executed
sometimes in 2018 and since then he is in custody.
The accused/appellant was sentenced to term
imprisonment for seven(7) years for committing offence
punishable under Section 489B and for six (6) years for
committing offence under Section 489C with fine and default
clause. It was directed that the substantive sentence of
imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Mr. Chakrabarty has pressed for bail of the accused on
the ground that out of 7 years term imprisonment, the
appellant has already served more than half of the sentence and
he is entitled to be released on bail in support of his contention.
Mr. Chakrabarty refers to a unreported decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh, SLP [(Crl) No.4634/2021].
Learned Public Prosecutor-in-Charge, on the other hand,
has raised objection against the prayer for bail on the ground
that initially he violated the conditions for bail and previous to
the instant application, he also renewed prayer for bail and a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3 rd February,
2021 rejected the said application. At this stage, the appellant
should not be released on bail.
Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, and on
careful perusal of the entire materials on record, the petitioner
has already served 4 years of imprisonment. Moreover, the
prayer for bail was rejected earlier on 3rd February, 2021
considering the merit of the case. Though this Court cannot sit
in appeal over the said order, it is sufficient to mention that
when initial order of bail was cancelled for non-performance of
the conditions appended to the order of bail, the Co-ordinate
Bench perhaps did not take the right approach in considering
the merits of the case while adjudicating an application for bail.
This Court is bound by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Saudan Singh's Case. Since the accused is
in custody for more than half of the sentence for which he was
punished, he may be released on bail on same conditions as
directed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
21st January, 2015.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )
