Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa vs Unknown on 20 January, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa vs Unknown on 20 January, 2025

    06
20-01-2025
(ct. no. 29)
  KOLE

                                    CRM (DB) 3163 of 2024
               In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
                      Procedure/Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Nandigram
                      Police Station Case No. 436 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 under
                      Sections 341////// of the Indian Penal
                      Code and Sections 25/ of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the SC
                      and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act..
                                           -And-
               In the matter of : Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa
                                                                            .... Petitioner.
               Mr. Swapan Mallick,
               Ms. S. Das,
                                                                  ... For the Petitioner.
               Mr. Debasish Roy,
               Ms. S. Biswas,
               Ms. Debjani Dasgupta,
                                                                       ... for the State.
               Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee,
                                                      .... For the defacto complainant.


                                Dictated by Apurba Sinha Ray, J:-

                1.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not been

named in the FIR. Investigation is complete and as such he may be

enlarged on bail. There is no chance of an early conclusion of the

trial since charge has not yet been framed.

2. Learned State Advocate and learned Advocate for the

defacto complainant oppose the bail prayer.

3. Learned State Advocate says that the independent

witnesses as well as the injured witnesses have named this

petitioner. There are sufficient incriminating materials in the case

diary against the present petitioner. If enlarged on bail, the

prosecution may suffer.

4. We have considered the materials on record. There are

sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. He has
2

been named by the injured as well as eye witnesses to the incident.

We do not find any inordinate delay in proceeding with the instant

matter.

5. In the report filed by the State, it is mentioned that out of

43 charge sheet named witnesses, 23 are independent witnesses

and 19 are police officials/doctors and other government officials.

It is also stated in the report that within one year examination of

major portion of C.S. witnesses will be completed.

6. Considering all the aspects, we are not inclined to enlarge

the petitioner on bail, at this stage.

7. CRM (DB) 3163 of 2024 is, thus, dismissed.

8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Apurba Sinha Ray, J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )