District : Cooch Behar
THE HIGH COURT CALCUTTA
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT
JALPAIGURI
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
JURISDICTION
CRM
No. of 2023
IN
THE MATTER OF :
An
application for Bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure’ 1973;
A
N D
In
the matter of :
Session
Case no. 400 of 2012, { ST Case no. 1 (12) 2012 } corresponding to GR Case no.
144 of 2011, in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case no. 64 of 2011,
dated 28-02-2011, under Section 395, 396, 397 & 216A of Indian Penal Code’
1860, pending before the Learned Additional District Session Judge, 1st
Court, Cooch Behar (NDPS);
A
N D
In
the matter of :
Yusuf
Ali @ Eusuf Ali @ Md. Ichhar Mian, Son of Md. Abdulgani Mian, aged about 57
years, residing at Jateshwar – 2 No., Falakata, District – Jalpaiguri, Pin - 735101.
{in Jail since 20-08-2014}. _______Petitioner
-
Versus -
The
State of West Bengal
______Opposite Party
To,
The Hon’ble Prakash
Shrivastava, Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the
said Hon’ble Court.
The
humble petition of the petitioner above named most respectfully;
S H E W E T H :
1.
That the Petitioner has been arrested
as on 20-08-2014, and consequently produced before the Learned Court below, and
since then the petitioner is in Jail Custody. This is the Second Time Bail
application filed before the Hon’ble High Court, by the Petitioner. First time Bail
application being CRM no. 240 of 2021, has been refused on 15-03-2021, by the
Hon’ble Court.
2.
That the Complaint has been registered
as FIR no. 64 of 2011, dated 28-02-2011, by one Shri Ashok Sha, who allegedly
stated inter alia that on 28-02-2011, while he was at his Shop in selling gold
ornament to the 5 to 6 number of customers, about 9 pm, then about 6 to 7
persons came to his shop having arms in their hand, forcibly entered. Two
persons were having covered face. They looted shop and taken several gold and
silver ornaments. They fired Gun by which few people sustained injury. The said
FIR has been registered against the unknown accused persons.
3.
That in Mathabhanga Police Station
Case no. 64 of 2011, dated 28-02-2011, under Section 395, 396, 397 & 216A
of Indian Penal Code’ 1860. The Police submitted Charge Sheet being no. 138 of
2011, dated 12-06-2011. The Charge Sheet does not disclose any specific offence
committed by the petitioner. The petitioner name has been implicated in the
Charge Sheet.
4.
That the Petitioner time and again
seeks to release on Bail before the Learned Additional Session Judge, 1st
Court, Cooch Behar, in Session Case no. 400 of 2012, { ST Case no. 1 (12) 2012
} corresponding to GR Case no. 144 of 2011, in connection with Mathabhanga
Police Station Case no. 64 of 2011, dated 28-02-2011, under Section 395, 396,
397 & 216A of Indian Penal Code’ 1860, but denied and therefore the
petitioner continuously is in Jail Custody, since the date of his arrest by the
Production Warrant, i.e. 20-08-2014.
5.
That it is pertinent to states that
the Petitioner’s bail application has been lastly denied on 15-03-2021.
Certified Copy of Order dated 15-03-2021, passed in CRM no. 240 of 2021, by the
Hon’ble Court, in connection with Session Case no. 400 of 2012, { ST Case no. 1
(12) 2012 } corresponding to GR Case no. 144 of 2011, arising out of Mathabhanga
Police Station Case no. 64 of 2011, dated 28-02-2011, under Section 395, 396,
397 & 216A of Indian Penal Code’ 1860, is enclosing herewith this
application.
6.
That on 03-09-2014, charged has been
framed on your petitioner, under Section 395, 396, and 397 of Indian Penal
Code’ 1860. The case has been posted for trial. Presently PW2 namely Ashok Sha
has been examined as part in chief by the Prosecution. The PW1 Paresh Saha has
been examined in full. The Charge Sheet has been submitted against the 13
numbers of the accused persons. Case filed for present against the 2 (two)
accused. The 9 ( Nine ) accused persons are on Bail, namely (1) Nazimul Haque,
(2) Sahidul @ Mohidul Haque, (3) Rabi Lakra, (4) Kartick Mondal, (5) Bishnu
Barman, (6) Sahidul Rahman, (7) Subrata Dutta, (8) Jaladhar Barman, and (9)
Ukil Barman. The rests accused are in Jail Custody including the Petitioner.
7.
That the alleged allegation of the
defacto complainant as has been canvassed in the letter of complaint, is false
and fabricated one, though the defacto complainant in arm twisting trying to
put Criminal recourses of Law into motion against your Petitioner.
8.
That your Petitioner most humbly
submits that he is no way connected with the alleged commission of offence and
it is also most humbly submits that the Petitioner is innocent. The other
accused persons are stranger to the petitioner. The petitioner had no idea
about what other accused persons has ever done.
The petitioner is clueless about the items seized by Police authorities
and as such no criminal element is there for which your petitioner could be
kept behind the bar.
9.
That your Petitioner specifically
denies the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and states
that he is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the
complainant.
10.
That the Petitioner states that his
Custodial detention will not improve the prosecution case as he is innocent and
not connected therewith in any manner.
11.
That Your Petitioner pertinently
states and submit that the petitioner has never involved in the alleged crime as
suggested by the prosecution.
12.
That Your petitioner states that there
is no chance of ascendance and / or tampering with evidences, if Your
petitioner released on bail at any terms and conditions, thereof.
13.
That the petitioner states that the
Charge of offences are groundless and it has been leveled against him with a
mala fide intention for humiliating him.
14.
That Your petitioner states that the
accusation leveled by the complainant stem not from motive of furthering the
ends of justice but from some ulterior motive and as such if the petitioner is
not released on bail, the very object of
release on bail, will become in fructuous.
15.
That your petitioner belongs from a
mediocre family, who run his family with his meager income.
16.
That your petitioner states that the
content of complaint of the de-facto complainant does not disclose and or
describe any particular offence or cause of offence against your petitioner.
17.
That your petitioner is innocent and
committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in this case.
18.
That the allegations made against your
petitioner is totally false, fabricated and motivated one.
19.
That Since the Charge Sheet submitted
by Police, the Investigation over by conducting every possible search, and
seizure thereof thus the detention of your petitioner become unwarranted and
not necessary.
20.
That your Petitioner undertake to
comply with all such direction as may be determine by the Hon’ble Court in the
event of releasing him on bail at any terms and conditions, thereof in the
interest of administration of justice.
21.
That your petitioner is a peaceful
person in his locality having his permanent resident and no chance of his
absconding and or evading the due process of Law.
22.
Unless the order as prayed for is
passed your petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
23.
That this application is made bona
fide and for the ends of justice.
In the circumstances stated
herein above your petitioner most humbly pray that your Lordships would
graciously be pleased to direct the release on bail to your petitioner in
connection with Session Case no. 400 of
2012, { ST Case no. 1 (12) 2012 } corresponding to GR Case no. 144 of 2011, in
connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case no. 64 of 2011, dated
28-02-2011, under Section 395, 396, 397 & 216A of Indian Penal Code’ 1860,
pending before the Learned Additional District Session Judge, 1st
Court, Cooch Behar (NDPS), and or pass such other order or orders as to your
Lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice.
And the Petitioner, as in duty bound
shall ever pray.
I
certify that the deponent is the authorized person of
The
petitioner and She is authorized to sign and affirm
This
petition on behalf of the petitioner,
Advocate
A F F I D A V I T
I, Aysa Khatun, Wife of Yusuf Ali @
Eusuf Ali @ Md. Ichhar Mian, Daughter of Ayjat Miya, aged about 30 years, by faith Muslim, by
Occupation Daily Labour, residing at Bhahmattar Chatra, Cooch Behar - 736167, do
hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1)
That
I am wife of the petitioner, I am well-acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case and as such I am competent to affirm this affidavit
on behalf the petitioner.
2)
That
the statements made in the foregoing Paragraphs of this petition are true to my
information derived from the petitioner and the records of the case, which I
verily believe to be true.
Prepared
in my Office Deponent is known to me
Advocate
Clerk to:
Advocate
Solemnly
affirmed before me
this day of February, 2023.
All
annexures are legible,
Advocate
C O M M I S S I O N E R
DISTRICT: COOCH
BEHAR
THE HIGH
COURT CALCUTTA
IN THE Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
C. R. M.
No. of 2023
In the Matter of
An application for bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ;
And
In the Matter of
Yusuf Ali @
Eusuf Ali @ Md. Ichhar Mian,,
….. Petitioner
Versus
State of
West Bengal,
……… Opposite Party
Ashok
Kumar Singh.
Advocate,
Bar
Association, Room No. 15,
High Court, Calcutta,
Mobile No. 9883070666.
Email : aksinghadvocate@rediffmail.com
Enrollment
Number : F/872/2000
No comments:
Post a Comment