AD- 30.05.2024
03 Ct. No.08
C.R.M. (DB) 1723 of 2024
& (P.Allowed)
04
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
With
Criminal Procedure filed on 28/05/2024 in connection with
ADS
L- Sandeshkhali P.S. Case No. 230 of 2024 dated 12/05/2024
04
under Sections 147/353/448/427/324/325/307/34/120B of
rkd/
the India Penal Code.
cp
And
In the matter of: Ajit Sardar & Ors.
….petitioners.
With
W.P.A. 14242 of 2024
Ganesh Karmakar & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 1132 of 2024
Utpal Maity & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder,
Mr. Pritam Roy,
Ms. Sayanti Poddar,
Mr. Soewel Bhattcharya,
Ms. Sagnika Banerjee,
Ms. Sarmistha Basak
…for the petitioners.
Mr. Kishore Datta,
Mr. Dipanjan Datta,
Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Debangshu Dinda,
Mr. Sayan Datta
….for the State in WPA 14242 of 2024
& MAT 1132 of 2024.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy,
Ms. Sanjana Saha
…for the State in CRM (DB) 1723 of 2024.
Leave prayed for is granted to Utpal Maity, Ajit Sardar,
Gita Bar, Suprakash Mondal and Sudeb Dey to prefer this appeal
being MAT 1132 of 2024.
2
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners
in connection with Sandeshkhali P.S. No.230/2024 dated
12/05/2024 in CRM (DB) 1723 of 2024 be kept with the record.
MAT 1132 of 2024 and CRM (DB) 1723 of 2024 are taken
up for analogous hearing.
There is a dispute which has been raised on behalf of the
State that the petitioner no.2, namely, Gita Bar, petitioner no.3
Suprakash Mondal, petitioner No.4 Utpal Maity and petitioner
no.5 Sudeb Dey @ Manik are not in custody in connection with
Sandeshkhali P.S. No.230/2024 dated 12/05/2024 as such no
question arises in respect of their bail application to be
considered.
According to the State the aforesaid petitioner nos.2 to 5
are in custody in another case.
We find that the petitioner no.1 is one Ajit Sardar who was
arrested on 13th May, 2024 in connection with the instant case
being Sandeshkhali P.S. No.230/2024 dated 12/05/2024.
Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners insisted that petitioner nos. 2 to 5 have been arrested
and/or taken into custody pursuant to the production warrant
which has been executed and which would be reflected according
to him in the order dated 24th May, 2024.
Learned advocate further submitted that unnecessary
confusion is being created by the State as there are political
issues involved.
In view of the conflicting stand taken by the petitioners as
well as State as to whether petitioner nos.2 to 5 were arrested or
3
not, initially we thought that it would be prudent to call for a
report from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Basirhat. However, we find that there is no dispute regarding the
factum of considering the bail application of Ajit Sardar whose
arrest is reflected from the order sheets. The case diary was
produced in connection with Sandeshkhali P.S. No.230/2024
dated 12/05/2024.
Attention of the Court was drawn by Mr. Nandy, learned
advocate for the State in respect of two injured persons, namely,
Dilip Mallick and Sreyam Gayen.
We have considered the injury report in the background of
the facts and circumstances of the case wherein there are 33 FIR
named accused persons. Prima facie, the doctors have been
unable to describe regarding the nature of the injuries and more
importance was granted to the narratives of the patients who
went to the hospital.
The petitioner no.1, namely, Ajit Sardar is in custody for
17 days.
We have perused the statements of the witnesses and we
do not find that there are such overt acts in the individual
capacity of the petitioner no.1 to further detain him in custody in
connection with the instant case. Accordingly, the prayer for bail
of the petitioner no.1, namely, Ajit Sardar is allowed.
Let the petitioner no.1, namely, Ajit Sardar be released on
bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of
like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction
of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat
4
subject to the condition that during bail petitioner no.1 shall
meet the investigating officer once in a week till the submission
of the charge-sheet. Petitioner no.1 shall not associate with any
activities which may disturb the peace and tranquility of the
area. In case of such events, the investigating officer would be at
liberty to bring the same to the notice of the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat and learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate would be at liberty to take steps for
cancelling the bail without further reference to this Court.
The aforesaid conditions would come into force on and
from 5th June, 2024.
In view of the prayer advanced on behalf of the State, I
direct that the petitioner no.1 shall stay outside the jurisdiction
of the Sandeshkhali Police Station till 4th June, 2024. However, it
would be the duty of the Inspector-in-Charge, Sandeshkhali
Police Station to ensure that the petitioner no.1 would cast his
vote on 1st June, 2024 (as such all assistance be rendered to the
petitioner no.1, in case he informs the Police Station).
In the event the petitioner no.1 fails to comply with the
conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court
to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.
In view of the observations made above in respect of
petitioner nos. 2 to 5, we direct learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate first to assess whether petitioner nos. 2 to 5 have
been taken into custody in connection with Sandeshkhali P.S.
No.230/2024 dated 12/05/2024. It would be the discretion of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to check
5
whether the said petitioners are similarly situated in respect of
the case or on the same footing as the accused Ajit Sardar and in
case if learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate finds that
they have been arrested in connection with the instant case
and/or are in custody in connection with the instant case,
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate would extend the
same benefit as the petitioner no.1 to the petitioner nos.2 to 5 in
connection with the instant case without referring the petitioner
nos.2 to 5 further to this Court.
The application being CRM (DB) 1723 of 2024 is allowed
partly.
In view of disposal of the application being CRM (DB)
1723 of 2024, the appeal being No. MAT 1132 of 2024 as well as
connected application being CAN 1/2024, are, thus, disposed of.
Let WPA 14242 of 2024 be listed before the Regular Bench
as directed in the order dated 21.05.2024.
Parties shall act on server copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)