MAHESHTALA P. S. CASE No. 228 of 2023 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 109, 112, 201, 212, 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Judgment
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Dipankar Paramanick. ...for the State. Mr. Partha Sarathi Maitra. ...for the de-facto complainant.
Petitioner is in custody for 133 days. Investigation is complete. He submits had no motive to commit the crime. Statements of witnesses with regard to his involvement are ambivalent. He prays for bail.
Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits petitioner is the brother of the deceased lady. Family of the deceased comprised of the ailing husband and a son with special needs. They also had a grandson. Petitioner took advantage of the situation and enter into conspiracy with one Isab Sk to commit the murder to his sister and grandson to grab the property. Statements of local people show there was enmity between 2 families. CDRs show telephonic conversations between co- accused Isab Sk and petitioner. Statement of tea seller and another person also corroborates the prosecution case that Isab Sk. acting on the instruction of the petitioner committed the murder.
We have considered the rival versions in light of the materials on record. Initially First Information Report was recorded against unknown persons. At that point of time nobody suspected the involvement of the petitioner. In course of investigation, involvement of co-accused Isab Sk. transpired. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested. CDRs show telephonic conversations between Isab Sk. and petitioner before and after the day of occurrence. Statement of a tea seller and another person show immediately after the incident, Isab Sk. informed the petitioner that the job was done. This read in the light of the CDRs give an impression of meeting of minds between two accused who commit the crime. It is strenuously contended that the family members have not disclosed inter se enmity. De-facto complainant is the son and he was interrogated at a time when no one was suspected of the murder. It is possible owing to trust bestowed on the petitioner was beyond their imagination, he may be involved in the crime.
Hence, we are of the opinion this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 3
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.