Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajesh Mondal & Ors vs Unknown on 14 July, 2021
14.07.2021
Mithun/
Ct.No.42.
IA No: CRAN/1/2021
in
CRA/202/2021
(Via Video Conference)
In re: An application under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 for suspension of the judgment and order dated
25.02.2021 and 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad
in Sessions Trial No.01(02)2018 and Session Case No.146 of
2017.
In the matter of: Rajesh Mondal & Ors.
...Appellants.
Mr.Arindam Jana, Adv.
Mr.Sumanta Das, Adv.
...for the appellants.
Mr.Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.P.P.
Ms.Faria Hossain, Adv.
Mr.Aniket Mitra, Adv.
...for the State.
This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed by the appellants/petitioners praying
for suspension of sentence and bail.
The petitioners have preferred a bail against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad
in Sessions Trial No.01(02)2018, corresponding Sessions Case
No.146 of 2017 whereby they were convicted and sentenced for
rigorous imprisonment of six years and fine for committing of
offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal
Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years with
fine for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian
Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
accused/applicants that they were arrested on 24 th August,
2017. Custodial trial was held and they were convicted and
sentenced in the manner as stated above. Therefore, as on this
date they are in custody for about three years and eleven
months. Since they have completed more than half of the
period of sentence of imprisonment, they are entitled to be
released on bail.
On merit it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
applicants that the independent witnesses did not support the
search and seizure and recovery of fake Indian currency notes
from the possession of the accused/applicants. The learned
Trial Judge convicted the accused persons only on the basis of
the evidence of the witnesses who are in police force.
Learned P.P.-in-Charge, on the other hand, submits that
the witnesses who conducted raid, arrested the accused
persons and recovered fake currency notes corroborated the
evidence of each other. The fake currency notes were exhibited
and scientific report was submitted. Therefore, the impugned
judgment does not suffer any illegality. So the learned P.P.-in-
Charge has raised serious objection against the prayer for bail.
However, he frankly submits that the accused persons are
entitled to be released on bail as they have already suffered
sentenced for more than half of the highest period of sentence
awarded against them by the Trial Court.
Under such conspectus, the appellants are released on
bail on their furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties,
one of whom must be a local surety to the satisfaction of the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur with
further conditions that if on bail, the appellants shall submit
their residential address and mobile phone number, if any, by
swearing affidavits before the Officer-in-Charge of the
jurisdictional police station. They also visited the Officer-in-
Charge of the jurisdictional police station once in a month
during the pendency of the appeal.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )
