High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 06 CAL CK 0033

Md. Touhid Alam @ Touhid Alam vs State Guddu @ Tahida alam

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 5 June 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajasekhar Mantha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. Case (Bail Application) (CRM) No. 8242, 8357, 8631 Of 2019, CRAN No. 1970 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 339 words

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

Petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the Court. Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through Video Conference.

This is an application filed by a co-accused for interim bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that the petitioner inter alia along with 19/17 persons (charge sheeted) were using ATM Cards after opening fictitious accounts to draw money and cheat public at large. It is also alleged that the money was being used to transfer to terrorist elements operating in India at the instance of foreign terrorist agencies.

Counsel for the State submits that the investigation has since been taken over by the C.I. D., West Bengal in view of the national and international ramification. The bail is aggressively opposed by the State.

Per contra, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the co-accused submits that some of the co-accused have already been granted bail. He also submits that the petitioner has obtained bail in a similar case registered with another police station.

Counsel for the State submits that the bail granted to other persons, could not be opposed effectively in view of the absence of the detailed memorandum of evidence that has been produced before this Court today.

Mr. Bhattacharya buttresses his submissions by adding that the petitioner is in custody for 15 months.

This Court has considered the submissions of the petitioner and the State.

Given the inter State and national consequences of the crime alleged against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail or interim bail at this stage.

Hence, C. R. M. 8631 of 2019 and the connected application being CRAN 1970 of 2020 shall stand rejected.

Accordingly, C. R. M. 8242 of 2019 and C. R. M. 8357 of 2019 also shall stand rejected.

All parties are to act on a server copy of this order on the usual undertakings.