In cases involving non-bailable offenses, the court has the discretion to grant bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the accused may flee from justice, thwart the course of justice, create other troubles by repeating offenses or intimidating witnesses, or endanger the larger public interest.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.:

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner who is in custody from 28/12/2022 in connection with Mekhliganj P.S. Case. No – 421/2022 dated 22/12/2022 under Section 14 A and 14C of the Foreigners Act 1946 read with Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and read with Section 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is no way connected with the present alleged offences and neither he knew nor had ever met with the other accused persons involved in these alleged offences. It is further contended that the petitioner is languishing in custody for a considerable period of time and the prolonged detention of the petitioner has pushed his family to the brink of ruination both socially and financially. It is also contended by the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of the place mentioned in the cause title and there is no chance to abscond or evade due process of law if released on bail.

3. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Advocate for the opposite party State of West Bengal, perused the material in the case diary.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against his client Learned Advocate further submits that as his client is in custody from 28/12/2022 the prayer for bail made by the petitioner be considered Learned Advocate for the opposite party State of West Bengal objects the grant of bail.

5. Upon perusal of the case diary it appears that the petitioner was not arrested from the place of occurrence but was implicated on the basis of the statement of co-accused person. It further appears that the petitioner was in custody in connection with another case and shown arrest in this case. It also appears that although the petitioner was taken in remand for 3 days and interrogated but there is no subsequent discovery of any materials pursuant to such interrogation.

6. Upon perusing the case diary and upon hearing the Learned Advocates although it would not be proper to make any observation about the merits of the case but it has to be decided as to whether the petitioner should be granted bail. In order to decide as to whether the petitioner should be granted bail it is necessary to consider some judicial decisions.

7. In the Case of Captain Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1962 SC. 253. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case being necessary to be considered on its own merits. The matters always call for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. Where the offence is of a serious nature the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of such considerations as the nature and seriousness of the offence character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused a reasonable possibility of presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with the larger interest of the public or with similar other consideration.

8. In the case of Gudikanti reported in AIR-1978 S.C. P-429, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in the matter of granting or refusing bail. It is observed that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interest of justice. The nature of charge is a vital factor and the nature of evidence is also pertinent. The severity of the punishment to which the accused may be liable if convicted also bears upon the issue. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. The Court has also to consider the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is rational to inquire int