21. 18.03.2025 Court No.29 (Pritam) (Allowed) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRA (DB) 3 of 2025 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of Nandigram Police Station Case No.436/2024 dated 23.05.2024 under Sections 341/325/326/307/302/506/34 of the IPC, 1860 & Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, 1989. And In the matter of: - Ratan Dolui @ Dolai & Anr. …petitioner. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswajit Manna …for the petitioner. Mr. Avishek Sinha, Ms. Snigdha Saha …for the State. Dictated by Apurba Sinha Ray, J. 1. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these two petitioners are in custody for 8 (eight) and 9 (nine) months, respectively. The investigation is complete. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not disclose any overt act committed by these petitioners. As the investigation is complete, there is no need for further custodial detention of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for the bail of the petitioners. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners. The 2 petitioner no.2 is the mastermind of the alleged offence committed upon the victim. Further, the longitude and latitude obtained from a digital device shows that the present petitioners were very much present at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of the offence. The said materials corroborate the statements of witnesses, namely, Chinmoy Roy and Soumen Giri under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Though the said witnesses did not speak about their overt act, it is natural that when there was an assembly of accused, it was very difficult to specify the overt act committed by each of the accused persons at the relevant point of time. 3. Learned advocate for the State has also drawn our attention to the order dated passed by this bench, wherein a bail application of one accused, namely, Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa was rejected. The present petitioners, according to the learned advocate for the State, are similarly circumstanced with the accused Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa and therefore, he has prayed for rejection of the instant bail application. 4. We have considered the materials on record. It appears that investigation is complete. Charge-sheet has been submitted. It is further true that the witness namely Chinmoy Roy had named the present petitioners, who were very much present at the time of place of occurrence. However, he did not specify what overt act has been committed by the present petitioners. From the record, it has transpired that no incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the present 3 petitioners. However, we have also gone through our order, wherein we have rejected the prayer for bail of Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa on the ground that there was no inordinate delay and further there was a seizure of incriminating material from the accused Palash Bhunia @ Jhapa. The prosecution has failed to show any perceived threat from the accused persons if they are enlarged on bail. 5. As the investigation is complete, we find that there is no need for further custodial detention of the present petitioners and, accordingly, we allow the petitioners’ prayer for bail. 6. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners, namely, Ratan Dolui @ Dolai & Biswajit Bhunia @ Bishnu shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two registered sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court- cum-Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of substantive hearing subject to the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Nandigram Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceedings, until further orders. The petitioners shall intimate their present local address where they will be residing while they are on bail and shall meet the 4 local jurisdictional police station once in week, until further orders. 7. In the event the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law without further reference to this court. 8. The application for bail being CRA (DB) 3 of 2025 is, thus, disposed of. 9. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 10. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)