Sahin Kadir vs Unknown on 3 March, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sahin Kadir vs Unknown on 3 March, 2025

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

 03.03.2025
 Item No.15
Monthly List
Court No. 26
   CHC
Rejected


                                 CRM (DB) 4357 of 2024

               In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
               Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the
               Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with
               Kashipur Police Station Case No. 277/ 2023 dated 16.06.2023 under
               Sections 147//////120B of the Indian Penal
               Code and Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884.
                                           -And-

               In the matter of : Sahin Kadir
                                                        ... ...Petitioner




               Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Advocate
               Ms. Shreetama Neogi, Advocate
                                    ... ... For the Petitioner


               Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.
               Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate
               Mr. Koushik Kundu, Advocate
                                     ... ...For the State

               1.

Petitioner prays for bail.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that,

the petitioner is in custody in excess of 230 days. He submits

that, out of 31 accused persons, 28 are on bail. No overt act

can be attributed as against the petitioner. He draws the

attention of the Court to the statement recorded under

Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submits

that, there is a delay in recording such statement so far as

the petitioner is concerned. According to him, no reliance

could be placed on such statement. He refers to order

granting bail to other coaccused. He submits that, the
2

incident occurred due to political rivalry and that, the

petitioner was falsely implicated.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the

petitioner does not stand on the same footing as the other

coaccused who were enlarged on bail from time to time. He

refers to materials on record. He contends that, as against the

petitioner there are eyewitnesses accounts recorded under

Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code which implicates

the petitioner in the overt act of murder. He draws the

attention of the Court that, there are at least criminal cases

pending as against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner

was absconding for a period of one year. His prayer for

anticipatory bail was rejected.

4. There are 5 criminal cases as against the petitioner. Such

criminal cases include inter alia Explosive Substance Act and

the Arms Act.

5. Petitioner was absconding for a period of about 1 year from

the date of rejection of his prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Eyewitnesses version implicate the petitioner. Value of such

eyewitnesses version, may be looked into and considered at

the trial. As on today as the materials stand, there is an

incident of murder. Petitioner was seen in the incident playing

an active role. There are many criminal antecedents so far as

petitioner is concerned. There is an issue of absconsion from

the last order of rejection of the prayer for anticipatory bail of

the petitioner.

3

7. In such circumstances, we are unable to grant bail to the

petitioner.

8. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

9. CRM(DB) 4357 of 2024 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)