A Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah, today dismissed a special Leave Petition filed challenging the legality of the order of dismissal of application for bail and suspension of sentence by of the Hon’ble High court of Calcutta.
The Petitioner was made to stand trial along with two other accused in the instant case, which was pending before the Sessions Court, Calcutta on the accusations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363/364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
An FIR was filed on the basis of an alleged written complaint filed by the Complainant, regarding the allegation of abduction of his brother and subsequent demands of ransom.
The Petitioner was arrested on 19.03.2008 and he has been in custody since the date of his arrest for the last more than 11 (eleven) years 8 (eight) months. On conclusion of the investigation, charges were framed against the Petitioner and other co-convict persons under section 471/ 120B/364A/419/34 of the Indian Penal Code, who pleaded non-guilty and claimed to be tried.
The Trial Court found the Petitioner along with two other co accused guilty of committing offences punishable u/s 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each.
The Petitioner then filed an appeal before the High Court of Calcutta, along with an application for suspension of sentence and grant of Bail on medical ground of his old and ailing father which was rejected /dismissed by the High Court.
According to the Petitioner, the entire prosecution case was concocted against the Petitioner and his co-convicts, by the investigating agency which can be clearly seen from the fact that a separate case under the Arms Act was initiated and got registered against him, on the basis of an alleged confessional statement given by the Petitioner in Police custody, but such alleged confessional statement was never brought on record by the prosecution. The petitioner was acquitted in the case and it was found that the said case was based on surmises and conjectures in absence of the alleged confessional statement.
The petitioners also state that the father of the Petitioner was diagnosed with 90% heart blockage and was required to undergo immediate bypass surgery. Till date, his father is surviving on medication and has not been able to avail such huge and complicated surgical procedures as he has nobody to take care of him during and after bypass surgery. The petitioner being the only surviving son of his father to take his care during such severe ailment and old age, had applied for bail on this ground but the same was rejected by the Calcutta High Court.
-India Legal Bureau