Sunil Chandra Das vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5801 Cal

023.11.2021

Mithun/ Ct.No.42.

IA No: CRAN/1/2020, CRAN/2/2021 In CRA/31/2020

(Via Video Conference)

In re: An application under Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, order and judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Ld.Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5 th Court, Malda, convicting the appellant under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

And

In the matter of: Sunil Chandra Das.

...Appellant.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Adv.

...for the appellant.

Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Mainak Gupta, Adv.

...for the State.

Re: CRAN/2/2021

The instant application is for bail of accused/appellant

Sunil Chandra Das.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

appellant/accused that out of six accused persons, five accused

on same footing was that of the present petitioner were granted

bail by this Court. Previously this Court refused the prayer for

bail to the accused. The accused is in custody for about 2

years. The involvement of the accused transpired from the

evidence of P.W.4 who is a chance witness. The injured persons

did not disclose the name of Sunil Chandra Das as the

perpetrator of offence. A counter case between the same parties

is also pending. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on

bail.

Learned P.P.-in-Charge has raised objection against the

prayer for bail of accused Sunil Chandra Das in view of his

involvement in the offence being transpired from the evidence

on record.

The petitioner was subjected to term imprisonment of 5

years. Out of said 5 years, he has already served out 2 years of

imprisonment. It is the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court enunciated the cases of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai

& Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat followed by Kiran Kumar Vs.

State of M.P. reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 6. In case of term

imprisonment, ordinarily if the accused remain on bail during

trial, he should be released on bail during the pendency of the

appeal.

Considering the fact that in the present case, the

petitioner was sentenced to term imprisonment and the injured

persons did not take his name as the assailant.

I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail pending

disposal of appeal. The appellant/petitioner may be enlarged

on bail of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of

whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Malda, with further conditions that if on

bail, he must meet the Officer-in-Charge of local Police Station

once in a month until further order and on the first date of his

visit, he shall file an affidavit, stating residential address,

mobile number and all other particulars, if any, so that he may

be tracked by the Police Officer during the pendency of the

appeal.

The instant application is, thus, disposed of.

( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )