MD ABDUS SALAM GAZI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2014-4-151
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 09,2014

Md Abdus Salam Gazi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Hasnabad P.S. Case No.413 of 2013 dated September 10, 2013 under ss.302/120B/34 IPC and ss.25/27 Arms Act is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.
(2.) Mr . Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. Eight persons were named in the FIR. The charge -sheet sending eight up for trial was filed on December 9, 2013. Seven named in the FIR were not sent up for trial. Seven including the petitioner not named in the FIR were sent up for trial. The documents at pp.13 and 17 will reveal that steps for arrest warrant, proclamation, and attachment all were taken at once. There was no proclamation under s.82(1). On the facts, the petitioner, not a proclaimed offender, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
(3.) In support of his contention that even if the petitioner is a proclaimed offender he can still seek anticipatory bail, he has relied on: - Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 AIR(SC) 1632; Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2003 CalCriLR 939; Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 1 CalCriLR 226; and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 1 SCC 694. He has contended that the principle stated in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 8 SCC 730 and reiterated in State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma, 2014 1 Crimes(SC) 70 being inconsistent with the principle stated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia is not binding. Mr. Bapuli appearing for the State has submitted as follows. The petitioner is a declared proclaimed offender. The confusion regarding the document at p.17 of the CRM has arisen because the proclamation was issued using form under the old Code. There is nothing to say that orders for arrest warrant and proclamation were issued at once. During investigation the petitioner's complicity in the brutal murder became clear. The statements at pp.26, 28, 36, 37, 38, 46, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 62 will reveal the extent of the petitioner's complicity in the commission of the offences. The post -mortem report at p.127 will reveal the brutality of the murder.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.