Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gobindo Saha vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 September, 2022
23.09.2022 (ASSIGNED)
Court : 04
CRA 336 of 2017
Item
Matter
: 01
: CRA
with
Status : IBG CRAN 3 (227) of 2020
Transcriber : NANDY
Gobindo Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Saryati Datta, Advocate
Mr. Chitrak Biswas, Advocate
......for the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Learned Public Prosecutor
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Learned A.P.P.
Mr. Dipankar Paramanik, Advocate
......for the State
CRAN 3 (227) of 2020
The instant application is filed by the appellant/petitioner
no. 1, namely Gobinda Saha, seeking suspension of sentence
and release on bail on conditions as may be imposed by the
Court.
The learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner submits
that the appellant/petitioner is in custody for more than fifteen
years and there is minimum possibility of the appeal being heard
in near future.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail
and submits that the appellant/petitioner has been found guilty
for commission of a dacoity and murder. The evidence of the
approver (PW-8) would corroborate the commission of such
offence and, in fact, the stolen articles were recovered from the
possession of the appellant/petitioner.
After hearing the respective Counsel and on perusal of the
records, we find that till date the paper book has not been
2
prepared and, therefore, there is least possibility of listing of the
matter to secure disposal in near future.
The Apex Court in case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 697, have put
an anxious consideration on keeping the person in custody
pending the appeal when the appeal is not likely to be taken up
and disposed of in near future. The Apex Court held that where
a person has served more than ten years of sentence and there
is no likelihood of the appeal being disposed of in near future
then the person should be released on bail except when there is
an extenuating circumstance against him.
In a recent judgment rendered in Sonadhar Vs. The State
of Chhattisgarh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 529 of
2021), the Apex Court propelled the earlier decision taken in
Saudan Singh (supra) and held that the person who is in custody
for more than ten years, he should be considered for grant of
bail pending the appeal provided there is no chance of hearing
of the appeal in near future or on extenuating circumstances and
lastly the conduct of the parties is such which does not instil
confidence of the Court in granting bail in these words: -
"It is pointed out that in the State of Bihar, there are 363 convicts
who have completed more than 14 years of custody. The norm for
premature release is stated to be 14 years actual custody and 20 years with
remission. There are also some convicts who may not be entitled to
premature release. There are stated to be now 268 convicts whose cases
are being considered for premature release. We consider appropriate to
issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High
Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However,
in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of
such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and
more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail
pending appeal, if there is no chance of 11 hearing of the appeal in the near
future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any
3
of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view
that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not
in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be
enlarged on bail."
Admittedly the appellant/petitioner is in custody for more
than fifteen years and in view of the fact that the paper book has
not been filed and the Court is going to close for ensuing long
vacation which leads to a conclusion that there is hardly any
possibility of the appeal being heard in near future and also we
could not find any extenuating materials against the appellant/
petitioner, which could be evident from the fact that he was
released on parole earlier and did not misused such liberty, we
find no other reason to deny the suspension of sentence pending
the appeal. However, we are also not unmindful of the fact that
direction has also been passed for preparation of the paper book
and we trust and hope that the same would be prepared within
a short span of time after the reopening of this Court following
Puja Vacation.
We, therefore, inclined to grant the interim bail for a
period of four months from date to the appellant/petitioner
namely Gobinda Saha on the conditions as indicated
hereinbelow: -
1.
The appellant/petitioner shall be released on bail upon
furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/-, with two sureties of like
amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandannagar, Hooghly.
2. The appellant/petitioner shall not leave the territorial
jurisdiction of the Ghola Police Station, North 24-
Parganas without prior permission of the ACJM,
Chandannagar.
3. The appellant/petitioner shall appear before the Ghola
Police Station on each day.
4. The appellant/petitioner is given liberty to pray for
extension provided the appeal has not been listed and
disposed of within the period of four months from date.
5. In default of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove,
the Inspector/Officer in-charge shall report to the ACJM,
Chandannagar, who will immediately cancel the bond
without making any reference to this Court and immediate
custody of the appellant/petitioner shall be ensured.
Liberty is granted to the appellant/petitioner to pray for
listing the appeal before the expiration of the period of interim
bail.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order be given to
the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
(Harish Tandon, J)
(Prasenjit Biswas, J)
