The division Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sk. Rejaul @ Kiran @ Rutu released the Petitioner on bail noting that the inordinate delay in trial infracts the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that an application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences registered under Sections 120B/121/121A/123/125 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, and added Sections 4/5/6 of the Explosive and Substance Act along with Sections 17/18/18A/19/20/21/23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and charges were framed under Sections 120B/121A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 18/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Petitioner was in the custody for about three years.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that nearly half of the term imposed on the co-accused has been served by the Petitioner. In the charge sheet, 54 witnesses were cited. Only one witness has been examined. There is little chance that the trial is going to conclude soon. It was submitted that even Abdul Majed, a co-accused, was out on bond.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the Petitioner was a member of a terrorist organisation viz., Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (“JMB”). It was further contended that the Petitioner doesn’t stand on the same footing as the co-accused Abdul Majed.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that though it cannot be said that there were no materials against the Petitioner to proceed with the trial, a more seminal issue is raised about the inordinate delay in trial infracting the Petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.
It was contended that Petitioner was in custody for about three years. Only one witness was examined to date. 54 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet and it is left to one’s imagination when the trial will conclude. Other Co-Accused persons were advised to plead guilty and have been sentenced to term imprisonment i.e. five years and nine months. Petitioner stood on a better footing than the Co-Accused. He did not have criminal antecedents. No explosive substance was recovered from his possession.
As the Petitioner suffered incarceration for almost half of the sentence awarded to the Co-Accused in the same case and the possibility of a conclusion of the trial was a far cry, the Court was inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on bail subject to strict conditions.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble High court released the Petitioner on bail subject to strict restrictions.
Case Title: Sk. Rejaul @ Kiran @ Rutu
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Case No: C.R.M. (DB) 4490 of 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Ms. Jhuma Sen, Mr. Masum Ali Sardar.
Advocates for the State: Advs. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments