Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sayed Sekh @ Md. Sayed Sekh @ Sayet vs Unknown on 8 September, 2021
08.09.2021
Item no. 30
Court No.32.
S.De.
(Allowed)
(Via Video Conference)
CRM 5768 of 2021
In Re: An application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.08.2021 in connection with
Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 374 of 2015 dated
15.07.2015 under Sections 365/363/302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
And
In the matter of : Sayed Sekh @ Md. Sayed Sekh @ Sayet.
......Petitioner.
Ms. Minoti Gomes, Advocate,
Mr. Kausik Biswas, Advocate,
......for the Petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Advocate,
Ms. Purnima Ghosh, Advocate,
......for the State.
It is candidly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner at the outset that the previous two applications of
similar nature were rejected by the co-ordinate Benches and
the other was not pressed by the petitioner.
However, it is contended that other co-accused for the
same offence are already on bail.
That apart, although the complaint was lodged long
back, and charge-sheet has been filed, there is no
substantial progress in the trial. As such, it is submitted
that the petitioner should also be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that
three previous attempts of the petitioner for getting bail did
not succeed.
Moreover, learned counsel points out that there was
sufficient evidence prima facie reveal against the accused.
However, keeping in view the fact that the other co-
accused have been enlarged on bail and considering the
advanced age of the petitioner as well as the petitioner being
already in custody for 340 days, we prefer to take a lenient
view in the matter.
As far as the previous rejections are concerned, we do
not find any clear reason on the merits of the prima facie
case against the petitioner in the said judgments, to hold
that there is any bar in granting bail at this juncture. That
apart, the trial has been delayed inordinately for no fault of
the petitioner, which should not be a hurdle in the
petitioner's liberty being unnecessarily curtailed even after
charge-sheet has been filed.
Accordingly, CRM 5768 of 2021 is allowed thereby
granting bail to the petitioner namely Sayed Sekh @ Md.
Sayed Sekh @ Sayet on the following conditions-
i) The petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs. 20,000/-
with two sureties of equal amount each, one of whom
must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Malda.
ii) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction
of the Kaliachak Police Station during the trial and, as
and when trial begins, shall be present on each of the
dates on hearing. In the meantime, prior to
commencement of trial, the petitioner shall report
every fortnight to the Investigating Officer.
iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make out
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing the
relevant facts before any police officer or Court and/or
tamper with evidence. The petitioner shall report to
the Investigating Officer once every fortnight. It is
made clear that, for the limited purpose to meeting the
Investigating Officer on prior intimation, the petitioner
shall be entitled to enter the jurisdiction of the
Kaliachak Police Station and, immediately after
reporting to the Investigating Officer, shall again leave
such jurisdiction. The bail is granted only subject to
the above condition. The petitioner shall also furnish
his current address to the Investigating Officer at the
earliest.
The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
