Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Wasim Also Known As Wassi vs Sk. Ripon @ Md. Irfan on 4 March, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
04.03.2025
55 to 58
Court No.26
S.D.
Rejected
CRM (DB) 4435 of 2024
In re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Garden Reach
Police Station Case No. 55 of 2024 dated 18.03.2024 under
Sections 302/307/288/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
-And-
In the matter of: Md. Wasim also known as Wassi
… … Petitioner
With
CRM (DB) 2865 of 2024
In re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Garden Reach
Police Station Case No. 55 of 2024 dated 18.03.2024 under
Sections 302/307/288/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
-And-
In the matter of: Sk. Ripon @ Md. Irfan
… … Petitioner
With
CRM (DB) 2875 of 2024
In re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Connection with Garden Reach
Police Station Case No. 55 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024 under
Sections 302/307/288/427/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
-And-
In the matter of: Md. Dilnawaz @ Raza
… … Petitioner
With
CRM (DB) 2949 of 2024
In re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Connection with Garden Reach
Police Station Case No. 55 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024 under
2
Sections 302/307/288/427/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
-And-
In the matter of: Md. Samim @ Shamimpuriwala @& Anr.
… … Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya
Mr. D. Banerjee
… … For the Petitioner in CRM (DB) 4435 of 2024
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Jakir Hossain
Mr. Shahan Shah
Mr. Sk. Abumusa
Mr. Soumen Barman
Mr. Umenun Khan
… … For the Petitioners in CRM (DB) 2865 of 2024
Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh
Mr. Shaharayar Alam
Ms. Sompurna Chartterjee
Ms. Laboni Sikder
Mr. Souvik Dey
… … For the Petitioner in CRM (DB) 2875 of 2024
Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya
Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh
Mr. Sourav Mondal
Mr. Arijit Bhuiya
Mr. Rony Mondal
… … For the Petitioner in CRM (DB) 2949 of 2024
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
…For the State in C.R.M. (DB) 4435 of 2024
Mr. Iqbal Kabir
Mr. Habib Hassan
…For the State in C.R.M. (DB) 2865 of 2024
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. A.P.P.,
Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar
…For the State in C.R.M. (DB) 2875 of 2024
Ms. Anita Gour
Ms. Rita Dutta
…For the State in C.R.M. (DB) 2949 of 2024
Four applications for bail are taken up for
consideration analogously as they emanate out of the same
police case. Four applications were being heard analogously
by the Coordinate Bench.
3
The petitioner in C.R.M. (DB) 4435 of 2024 is an
accused who is in custody for about 351 days.
Learned advocate appearing for such petitioner
submits that considering the period of custody and the fact
that police filed charge sheet and in fact trial is in progress
and considering his role in the incident, prayer for bail
should be considered.
Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that
the petitioner is one of the developers who constructed a
building illegally. Such building collapsed killing 13 persons
and injuring 15 others. He submits on instructions that
prosecution proposed to examine about 50 witnesses; out of
which 04 witnesses stand examined. He opposes the prayer
for grant of bail.
Learned Senior advocate appearing in C.R.M (DB) 2865
of 2024 submits that it is alleged as against his client that he
was the head mason. He refers to the charge sheet and
submits that the allegations as against his client is not to
such effect. He also prays for bail on the ground of period of
detention of 11 months as also the fact that the police filed
charge sheet and trial is in progress with custodial trial not
being required so far as his client is concerned.
Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the
prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner in C.R.M. (DB) 2865
of 2024 largely on the grounds as that of the earlier
petitioner. He submits that, the petitioner is the head
4
mason. Petitioner was an instrumental in making the design
of the building, constructing it resulting in the mishap.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in
C.R.M. (DB) 2875 of 2024 and C.R.M. (DB) 2949 of 2024
submits that his clients hold a Power of Attorney. His clients
entered into agreement for construction after the builder
obtained the sanctioned plan.
Learned advocates appearing for the State in C.R.M.
(DB) 2875 of 2024 and C.R.M. (DB) 2949 of 2024 submits
that the petitioner in C.R.M. (DB) 2875 of 2024 is not the
owner. Such petitioners misrepresented himself to enter into
several agreements with unsuspecting members of the public
with regard to the constructed building. Such petitioner also
fled away and was arrested from Islampur.
So far as the petitioners in C.R.M. (DB) 2949 of 2024
are concerned, learned advocate appearing for the State
submits that the petitioner no. 1 was arrested from
Jharkhand.
An illegally constructed building appearing to be
constructed on a filled up water body, without any
sanctioned building plan collapsed killing 13 persons and
injuring 15 others.
Petitioners before us stand implicated in various
capacities in such incident. One is a developer, the other is
the head mason who designed and constructed the building,
three others claimed themselves to be the owners. No
5
sanction for construction was obtained. Two of the alleged
owners fled away from the spot and arrested from different
locale.
Forensic evidence suggests that spurious materials
were used in the construction. There was no sanctioned
building plan for the construction. Materials on record also
suggest that the construction was made on a water body.
Trial is in progress. Four prosecution witnesses were
already examined.
The police case is dated March 18, 2024. Period of
detention coupled with the fact that trial is in progress does
not permit us to return a finding the rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand infracted so far
as any of the petitioners before us are concerned.
Enlarging any of the petitioners on bail at this stage is
likely to affect the trial. Moreover, it is likely to send an
improper signal to the society.
In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant
bail to any of the petitioners and the prayer for bail of the
petitioners is rejected.
C.R.M. (DB) 4435 of 2024, C.R.M. (DB) 2865 of
2024, C.R.M. (DB) 2875 of 2024 and C.R.M. (DB) 2949 of
2024 stand dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
6
[ad_1]
Source link