Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md.Irfan @ Sonu & Ors vs Unknown on 21 January, 2021
21.01.2021
Mithun
Sl. No.12.
D/L.
Ct.No.30
CRA/62/2020
with
I.A. No: CRAN/3/2020, CRAN/4/2020, CRAN/5/2021.
In Re: CRAN/3/2020, CRAN/5/2021.
In the matter of : Md.Irfan @ Sonu & Ors.
...the appellant.
Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Adv,
Mr. Abbas Ibrahim Khan, Adv.
... for the Petitioner.
Md. Shajahan Hossain, Adv .,
Mr. S.Sultana, Adv.
...for CRAN 3 of 2020.
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.P.P.,
Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Adv,
Mrs.Manas Roy, Adv.
... for the State.
CRAN 3 of 2020 and CRAN 5/2021 are taken up
together for hearing. In CRAN 3 of 2020,
appellant/convict Md.Asraf @ Raju and in CRAN 5 of 2021
Md. Samim @ Shadab have prayed for bail. In respect of
petitioner Md.Samim @ Shadab, it is prayed for renewal of
bail which was previously rejected by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 7 th July, 2020. So far as it
relates to other accused, this is fresh application under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner in CRAN 5 of 2021 that the petitioner was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven (7) years for
committing offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code. Out of total period of sentence, he already is in
custody for about five (5) years and two (2) months.
Considering the period of detention he should be released
on bail.
It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the
above-named petitioner that till date lower court record
has not been called for and paper book has not been
prepared. Therefore, there is no chance of early disposal
of the instant appeal. Considering all such circumstances,
the petitioner may be granted bail.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner in CRAN 3 of
2020 has adopted the submissions made by the learned
Advocate in CRAN 5 of 2021. Furthermore, he draws my
attention to the evidence of the injured (P.W.3) who
clearly admitted that the miscreants were identified by the
police with him at Lalbazar. I have also perused the order
dated 7th July, 2020. In my humble opinion, one matter
has not been considered in the said order that the F.I.R.
made out a story of involvement of three accused persons
in committing the offence and one of the accused caused
injury to the person of P.W.3 by gunshot. In the
judgment, the person who used the firearm to injure the
victim has not been identified. Considering such
circumstances and in view of long detention of the
petitioners, execution of sentence passed in S.T.03(01)
10/S.C.34(12) 09 be suspended. The petitioners are
enlarged on bail of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of
Rs.10,000/- each one of whom must be a local surety to
the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Alipore with further condition that if on bail they must visit
the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station
once in a month and shall submit their address by
swearing an affidavit to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police
Station on the first day of their visit.
The Department is specifically directed to call for the
lower court records at the earliest and not beyond seven
(7) days from the date of this order.
The Department is further directed to prepare paper
books within three weeks from the date of arrival of the
lower court records.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Section Officer,
Criminal Appeal Section for compliance.
The parties are directed to act on the server copy of
this order.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
