Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Ashique @ Pappu vs Unknown on 13 September, 2021
13.09.2021.
(Allowed)
C.R.A. 240 of 2021
With
IA No. C.R.A.N. 1 of 2021
In Re.: An Application for bail in connection with appeal
under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
filed on August 25, 2021.
And
In the matter of : Sk. Ashique @ Pappu ...Appellant
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Sofia Nesar,
Mr. Santanu Seth
....for the appellant/petitioner
Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg
.....for the State
In Re.: IA No. C.R.A.N. 1 of 2021
This is an application for bail under Section 389(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with
appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
contends that there are gross irregularities in the
conviction and sentence of the appellant/petitioner. First,
learned counsel points out, there is gross difference
between the time of the alleged incident, as stated in the
deposition of the sole independent witness (P.W.3) and that
alleged by P.W. 1, who was the arresting officer.
That apart, it is contended that, in order to prove
assembly for the purpose of dacoity, at least five persons
were required to be shown to have assembled. However, in
the present case, only the petitioner/appellant was
apprehended by the police.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
prayer for bail on the ground that there was clear evidence
on record, as corroborated by the deposition of the
independent witness, that the petitioner was guilty of the
charges under which he was convicted.
However, there is sufficient scope of extending
benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant/petitioner in
view of the fact that there was about four hours' difference
regarding the times of arrest stated by the only
independent witness and the arresting officer, being
respectively 8 to 8.30 P.M. and 12.55 A.M. That apart, the
age of the sole independent witness was only fifteen, who
might have been coaxed/manipulated.
Moreover, it is evident from the second page of the
impugned judgment that although only the petitioner was
arrested, it was stated by the arresting officer that during
interrogation, the accused "persons" disclosed that "they"
(both in plural) assembled with incriminating weapons to
commit dacoity in the locality. Such allegation is
inherently contradictory with the fact that the police were
able to arrest only one person, that is, the accused,
thereby obviating any scope of having got any information
from the other accused persons.
In view of there being such prima facie gross
discrepancies in the prosecution case, I am of the opinion
that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
Accordingly, IA No. C.R.A.N. 1 of 2021 is allowed,
thereby granting bail, during pendency of C.R.A. 240 of
2021, to the appellant/petitioner, namely, Sk. Ashique
alias Pappu on condition of furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of
like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Howrah and on further condition that the
appellant/petitioner shall not make out any inducement,
threat and/or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer
and also on further condition that the appellant/petitioner
shall meet the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police
station once a month.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
