21.05.2025 (Ct. No. 03)

RS CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRR 327 of 2024 HAFIJUL KHANDOKAR @ MIAH -Vs-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Mr. Subhsish Misra, Adv.

Mr. Satyajit Paul, Adv.

Ms. Shreya Sarkar, Adv.

… for the petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Aniruddha Biswas, Adv.

… for the State

1. Mr. Subhasish Misra, learned counsel, is appearing for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is appearing for the State.

3. The petitioner has filed the present application praying for quashing of the proceeding initiated by the Dinhata Police Station Case No. 456 of 2019 dated 24.10.2019 under Section 3/4 of West Bengal Gambling and Prize competition Act read with section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act and the Charge Sheet No. 5 of 2024 dated 17.01.2024 dated 17.01.2024 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dinhata being G.R. Case No. 471 of 2019.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the complaint of SI Tapas Das, police of Dinhata Police Station has registered the above case in which the name of the petitioner is also included. After initiation of the said case, police has completed investigation and filed charge sheet. In the charge sheet also the petitioner has been entangled.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the name of the petitioner is appearing in the FIR and in the charge sheet but there is no evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence or the petitioner has not played any role in the alleged gambling.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case of the prosecution, police of Dinhata Police Station received information with regard to gambling in the house of Bablu Byapari and accordingly, the police has conducted raid but the police has only arrested one Anjey Miah from the place of occurrence. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused who was arrested had narrated the name of the petitioner and other persons and accordingly, police has initiated the case against the petitioner.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the charge sheet the investigating officer has cited all together 16 witnesses but none of the witnesses have stated anything against the petitioner with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner was present nor anything was seized from the petitioner and there is no evidence on record with regard with regard to the role played by the petitioner in the alleged offence. He submits that only on the basis of the name narrated by the co-accused, police has registered the FIR by including the name of the petitioner and also included the name of the petitioner in the charge sheet without any evidence. There is no material on record to prove that the petitioner is involved in the present case. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the case against the petitioner.

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that as per the information received by the police, police has conducted raid in the house of one Bablu Byapari but the persons playing gambling in the said house have fled away from the place of occurrence and only one person was arrested, namely, Anjey Miah who has confessed that the persons were playing gambling in the said house and he has disclosed the name of the petitioner.

10. Counsel for the State submits that as the petitioner fled away from place of occurrence and as such the police could not arrest the petitioner but subsequently, the petitioner himself has surrendered before the learned Court wherein he was granted bail which proves the petitioner has admitted that he was involved in the offence. Counsel for the State submits that the members of raiding parties who accompanied the complainant have stated that the petitioner was present at the place of gambling but he has fled away from th