In Re: Sri Susanta Ghosh

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for bail of the accused Susanta Ghosh, who has been arrested and charge sheeted for having committed offence punishable u/s 147/148/149/448/326/307, 302/506/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

It is the prosecution case that on 22nd September, 2002 in the morning between 9-00 hrs. to 10-00 hrs. at village Piyasala when Ajoy Acharyya and his associates came to the village and were trying to open the office of Trinamool Congress by hoisting the flag, the persons belonging to CPI(M) led by the petitioner Susanta Ghosh, Tarun Roy, Entaz Ali and others gathered there armed with deadly weapons and on the instigation of the petitioner, the party workers of Trinamool Congress were chased and assaulted causing death of seven persons at the Kota Garar field, i.e. the farm house of Gobinda Majhi at Piyasala Village. According to the prosecution the petitioner along with others has been instrumental in initiating the attack on Trinamool Congress Workers so as to prevent them from opening their office in the village till they were persecuted and seven of them being killed, their bodies were buried and concealed and, therefore, liable for having committed offence u/s 147/148/149/448/326/307, 302/506/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he belongs to CPI(M) Party and was a Minister in the CPI(M) Government and even today is an elected M.L.A. of the CPI(M) party from the region. It is submitted that the incident had occurred on 22nd September, 2002 and out of the said incident three cases were registered by the police i.e. F.I.R. No. 59, 60 and 61 of P.S. Keshpur. The persons who are arrested were tried in a court of law and were acquitted against which no appeals were preferred. It is submitted that after the CPI(M) having lost the election in the State and the Trinamool Congress having formed the Government, the petitioner and others have been falsely implicated in the case after obtaining an FIR from Shyamlal Acharya the son of the deceased Ajoy Acharyya, who was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred. It is submitted that the statement of witnesses goes to show that the petitioner was not at all concerned with the incident and at the most he had only directed assembly of persons on the day of the incident to assault and drive away Trinamool supporters, but not to kill them and, therefore, the petitioner has no role to play and if at all the prosecution case is to be accepted it is the persons who had assembled there have taken their own decision and might have assaulted the people or killed them. It is, therefore, submitted that as the petitioner is a sitting MLA, his availability at the trial cannot be doubted as his likelihood of absconding or fleeing is ruled out and, therefore, his case should be considered for grant of bail.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show the complicity of the petitioner and the statement of witnesses clearly goes to show that the petitioner was present and participated in the incident right from the beginning till the bodies of the victims were disposed of and, therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for having committed offence u/s 147/148/149/448/326/307, 302/506/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and, therefore, he should not be released on bail.

With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor we have gone through the charge sheet and statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case which forms part of the charge sheet. At this stage while considering the application for bail, we need not analyse the statement of witnesses so as to ascertain whether they will stand before the Court during the trial. At this stage we have to accept the prosecution case as it is presented in the Court.

Having gone through the statement of the witnesses, we find that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for having committed offence u/s 147/148/149/448/326/307, 302/506/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the said offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Considering the serious nature of the charge and the gravity of the offences, we are not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, therefore, the petition is rejected.

We make it clear that whatever observation we have made while deciding this application should not be construed as on the merits of the matter and the trial Court should not be influenced in any manner while dealing with the case on merits before it. Photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.