Calcutta High Court
CRM/11294/2020 of GOUR CHANDRA SARKAR AND ORS Vs State of West Bengal on 31 December 2020
12 31.12.2020 rrc/ss CRM 10914 of 2020 (via Video Conference) In re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskahali PS Case No. 571 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 under Sections 341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
7 & 12 31.12.2020 rrc/ss
CRM 10914 of 2020
(via Video Conference)
In re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskahali PSCase No. 571 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 under Sections341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the matter of : 1. Gour Chandra Sarkar
2. Samar Sarkar
….. petitioners
w i t h
CRM 11294 of 2020
(via Video Conference)
In re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskahali PSCase No. 569 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 under Sections341/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the matter of : 1. Gour Chandra Sarkar
2. Samar Sarkar3.Debesh Sarkar
….. petitioners
Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar
….For the petitioners
Mr. Narayan Prasad AgarwalaMs. Subhasree Patel
…..For the State (in CRM 10914/2020)
Mr. Arijit GangulyMr. Sanjib Kumar Dan
…..For the State
(in CRM 11294/2020)
CRM 10914 of 2020 and CRM 11294 of 2020 are taken uptogether due to identity of the complaint from which those arose.
The petitioners submit that the petitioners apprehend arrestin connection with the second FIR lodged in connection with thesame set of offences, for which no arrest is permissible in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the secondFIR for similar offence ought to be treated as merged with, orbeing a part of, the first FIR.
It is further submitted that the weapon of offence has alreadybeen recovered and that no useful purpose will be served inarresting the petitioners. The present applications foranticipatory bail have been made on such premise.
Learned counsel appearing in both matters for the Statesubmit that the nature of the complaints lodged are different andpertain to different sets of acts. Moreover, the injured persons incase of the two FIRs are also different. As such, the principle ofmerger of the FIRs does not apply to the present case.
It appears from the case diary, handed over today, that thenature of injury and the offences alleged were grievous in nature.That apart, the petitioners cannot blow hot and cold in the samebreath by moving anticipatory bail in connection with twoseparate FIRs merely on the ground that the two FIRs were nottechnically sufficient to initiate two separate investigations,thereby attempting to obviate arrest under either FIR.
Even if the principle of merger of FIRS were to be applied,each of the FIRs would comprise of a component of the other,conferring right upon the police to initiate investigation andarrest the accused, if necessary.
That apart, it is for the competent court, before which trialwould commence, if any, to decide whether the nature of the twoFIRs is similar. It is not for this Court, at this juncture, to enterinto the merits of such contention.
It is further seen that the statement made by Amit Mondal,one of the eye witnesses, implicates the petitioners as well.
Accordingly, there is no scope of granting anticipatory bail tothe petitioners at this stage.
Hence, CRM 10914 of 2020 and CRM 11294 of 2020 aredismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handedover to the parties on the usual undertaking.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)