AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
Appellant renews the prayer for bail in respect of a proceeding in which, charges stand framed.
Earlier prayer for grant of bail was rejected by the coordinate Bench on January 17, 2024 passed in C.R.A.(DB) 347 of 2023.
By the order dated January 17, 2024, coordinate Bench directed the Trial Court to consider the issue of framing of charge including the prayer for discharge of the appellant within seven days from the date fixed for such purpose by the Trial Court.
Court is informed that, charges stand framed in respect of the criminal proceeding. Charges are under Sections 109/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Learned advocate appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) submits that, trial is in progress. Appellant is the principal accused. He submits that, in the event, the appellant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of the trial getting affected. He relies upon 2025 INSC 788 (Central Bureau of Investigation versus Sekh Jamir Hossain And Ors.) in support of his contention that bail to such accused was cancelled.
In response to a query of the Court, learned advocate for the N.I.A submits that, prosecution proposes to examine 41 witnesses at the trial. As on date, four prosecution witnesses were examined. The next date of trial is fixed on July 11, 2025.
As noted above, trial is in progress. Prosecution seeks to rely upon 41 witnesses out of which, only four were examined. Appellant before us is in custody for over three years.
Right of speedy trial of an accused, as noted in various authorities of the Supreme Court, stands affected. There is hardly any likelihood of the trial concluding any time soon given the number of prosecution witnesses that the prosecution seeks to examine at the trial.
Charges, as noted above, does not involve any threat to national security. One of the sections is bailable. Appellant apparently, is not charged with commission of any heinous crime.
Sekh Jamir Hossain & Ors. (supra) considered the materials in the case diary relating to an investigation of a crime undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There, the Supreme Court found that there were materials to establish that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted attack on the house of the complainant vandalizing the same and looting away the household articles. There were evidence to suggest that, the wife of the complainant was pulled by the hair and disrobed. The accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the victim poured kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self-immolation only on which the accused backed away. Such involvement of the appellant in a heinous crime does not appear from the materials in the case diary given the nature of charges framed by the learned Trial Court.
Significantly, charges as framed by the learned Trial Court are not under challenge by the National Investigation Agency.
In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, we direct that the appellant, namely, Samar Sankar Mondal shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court under NIA Act, subject to condition that the appellant shall appear before the learned trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that, appellant will not enter into the jurisdiction of the police station in which the police case was registered. Appellant will inform both the Investigating Officer as also the learned Trial Judge as to the present residence within seven days from date.
In the event, the appellant fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.
The prayer for bail of the appellant is allowed.