Arnab Dam vs State Of West Bengal

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is in custody for six years and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that none of the thirty witnesses who have been examined till date have identified the petitioner during trial. Forty other witnesses are to be examined. He, accordingly, prays for bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and number of cases are pending against him. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner in the present case are grave. Vital witnesses are yet to be examined and date for recording of evidence has been fixed on 15th May, 2019.

We have considered the materials as well as the evidence on record. The instant case relates to an attach by member of an unlawful association resulting in the death of twenty four police personnel. It is a sad reflection on the quality of prosecution conducted in such a sensitive case that the same has lingered on more than eight years. Even then, the prosecution claims vital witnesses are yet to be examined. Loss of so many lives and that too of police personnel while on duty is most agonizing and the indifference of the State in prosecuting a crime of such grave nature is appalling. While the family members of the police personnel eagerly wait for justice to done, the petitioner languishes in custody awaiting for speedy trial. State appears to have failed in its twin constitutional duty to ensure justice to the victims as promptly as possible and the right to speedy trial to the accused in the present case. We have perused the evidence recorded till date. Petitioner, who is alleged to be a conspirator in this heinous crime which unleashed mob fury on the police personnel causing innumerable deaths, has not been identified by any of the witnesses. It has been strenuously argued that delay in the instant case was due to abscondance of accused persons and the vital witnesses yet to be examined would disclose the role of the petitioner. We have considered the materials on record from that perspective too. We note that the charge was framed in the instant case was initially framed in 2011 and trial commenced. Upon arrest of absconding accused persons charge was reframed in 2016 and denovo trial is being held. We are unable to appreciate why provision under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not resorted to in respect of the absconding accused persons. Be that as it may, we have examined the evidence on record as well as the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who are yet to be examined. Although the said witnesses have made certain references to the petitioner, no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner in the alleged incident which caused loss of numerous lives. We refrain from making further observations with regard to the witnesses who are yet to be examined lest the same may prejudice to the trial. Notwithstanding the gravity and gruesome nature of offence which has caused loss of numerous lives, one cannot remain unmindful of the casual manner in which the prosecution has been conducted in such a serious crime resulting in continued detention of the petitioner against whom till date there is hardly any evidence of substance. We have been informed that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and a number of cases are pending against him. However, in most of those cases the petitioner is on bail. Trial has dragged on for almost a decade and the petitioner is in custody since 2013.

Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that continued pre-conviction of the petitioner would an affront to his fundamental right to speedy and fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is hardly any possibility of the petitioner tampering or intimidating witnesses who are yet to depose in the present case or commit similar offences in future. In the aforesaid factual matrix particularly in the light of the fact that the petitioner has languished in custody since 2013 and there is hardly any evidence on record connecting him with the alleged crime till date, we are of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, however, subject to strict conditions.

Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with five local sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipore, on condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sonarpur Police Station while on bail except for attending the trial and other criminal proceedings until further orders. He shall report to the officer-in-charge of Sonarpur Police Station every alternate day until further orders. He shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and he shall attend before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not seek any adjournment on his behalf and in the event he fails to do so, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference to this Court.

In view of the protracted delay in the trial of the case, we request the trial court to hold the trial on a day to day basis and conclude the same not later than six months from the next date fixed before the said Court without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.

Let photostat plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the State on usual undertaking.