Anticipatory bail may be granted in non-bailable offenses when no prima facie case is established, especially if lesser charges are bailable.

JUDGMENT

[1] This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereunder) for granting pre -arrest bail to the present petitioners in the event of their arrest in Natun Bazar P.S. case No. 2021/ NTB/011 which has been registered under Sections 148 , 145, 341, 307, 323, 325 read with Section 506 IPC.

[2] Heard Mr.H.Debnath, learned counsel who is appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP who is representing the state respondent.

[3] On the factual score, case was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by one Sanjay Chakraborty, son of late Haradhan Chakraborty with the Officer in charge of Natun Bazar P.S on 12.04.2021 wherein said Sanjay Chakraborty alleged that the present petitioners along with their associates attacked him in his house at about 4 O’clock in the afternoon of 12.04.2021 with deadly weapons with the intention of killing him. As a result of their assault, the informant and his family members received multiple injuries. The injury of the informant was so fatal that he lost his sense at the spot. Police rescued him and brought him to hospital where he received a prolonged treatment for recovery. The other injured were also taken to the hospital who had to undergo various diagnostic tests and treatment for their recovery.

[4] Based on the said FIR, a case was registered and investigation of the case was taken up.

[5] Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have filed this application for pre arrest bail. .

[6] It is submitted by Mr.Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that other than Section 307 , IPC, all other sections under which the petitioners have been booked are bailable. According to Mr.Debnath, learned counsel, the allegations lebelled against the petitioners does not attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC since the weapons allegedly used by the petitioners and the injuries allegedly suffered by the injured persons does not support the allegation that the petitioners were having an intention to kill the informant.

[7] According to learned counsel, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and as such they should be protected by granting anticipatory bail in favor of them. Mr.Debnath, learned counsel also refers to the order dated 23.06.2021 of this court whereby some of the FIR named accused of this case were granted anticipatory bail for an interim period till 14.07.2021 on the same set of allegations. According to Mr.Debnath, learned counsel, representing the petitioners, the present petitioners are similarly situated and same relief may be granted to them.

[8] Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted by Mr.Datta, learned PP that the Apex Court in a catena of judgments has issued directions for not granting such relief to the accused persons who are either absconding or declared to be proclaimed offenders..

[9] Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP v. Pradeep Sharma reported in AIR 2014 SC 626, learned PP submits that the petitioners are not entitled to pre arrest bail because the investigating agency has approached the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for declaring the present petitioners proclaimed offenders and in such situation it would not be appropriate to grant custodial immunity to them by granting them pre arrest bail. Mr. Datta, learned PP has also referred to the injury reports available in the case diary and submits that several persons were injured from the alleged occurrence and they had to undergo CT Scan and other diagnostic tests and receive prolonged treatment in hospital for recovery and in t