Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Peyara @ Rajkumar vs Unknown on 15 July, 2021
20.
15-07-2021
(ct. no.30)
debajyoti
CRA 168 of 2020
with
IA NO:CRAN/1/2020 (Old NO:CRAN/2769/2020)
with
IA NO:CRAN/2/2020
with
IA NO:CRAN/3/2020
In re: An application for bail under Section 389(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure being CRAN 2 of 2020 filed on
23-09-2020.
-And-
In the matter of : Md. Peyara @ Rajkumar
... appellant/applicant.
Mr. Jaydeep Biswas,
Mr. Soumyadeep Das,
Mr. Kaushik Ghosh
... For the appellant/applicant.
Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned APP,
Mr. Subrata Roy,
Mr. Arijit Ganguly
... For the State.
The appellant in CRA 168 of 2020 has filed the
present application, being CRAN 2 of 2020 for suspension of
sentence imposed by learned Court below. The appellant has
been convicted of offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). For the offence punishable
under Section 394 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of
Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three months. For the offence punishable under Section 397
of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in
default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months,
with an observation that the sentences will run concurrently.
Mr. Biswas, learned advocate, appearing for the
appellant/applicant submits that there are contradictions in
the testimonies of the witnesses but the same had been
disregarded by the learned Court below without any valid
reason. The appellant was not given any benefit though the
learned court below arrived at a specific finding that the
investigation was defective and the investigating officer had
been negligent. In the said conspectus, there is every chance
of success in the appeal which has been admitted by this
Court by an order dated 7th July, 2020.
He further submits that the appellant had already
undergone imprisonment for a period of four years and seven
months and there is also no possibility towards early disposal
of the present appeal.
Mr. Bapuli, learned advocate, appearing for the State
opposes the appellant's prayer and drawing the attention of
this Court to the contents of the judgment, he submits that
the sequence of event establishes the direct involvement of
the appellant in the offence.
We have assessed the quality of evidence recorded by
the learned trial Court. On an overall appreciation of the
evidence and considering the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where
it can be said that the appellant has no chance of succeeding
in the appeal. The appellant/applicant had already served a
substantial period of sentence and there is also no real
likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future.
Keeping in view the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. The State
of Punjab, reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 291,
we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend
the sentence and grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, we suspend the sentence and direct that
the appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond
of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of
them must be local, subject to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah with a further
condition that the appellant shall meet with the Officer-in-
Charge of Topsia Police Station once in a fortnight on and
from 20th July, 2021 until further orders.
The application being CRAN 2 of 2020 and the
connected applications being CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old NO: CRAN
2769 of 2020) and CRAN 3 of 2020 are, accordingly, disposed
of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
