PRABHUDAYAL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Rules are at the instance of the accused petitioner, Prabhudayal Gupta, directed against two orders dated the 13th september, 1973 passed by Sri S. M. Guha, Sessions Judge, Alipore, District 24-Parganas rejecting the petitioner's application for bail in criminal misc. cases Nos. 744 of 1973 and 745 of 1973. The Rules, which were directed to be heard together, involve the same points and are taken up for disposal together for the sake of convenience.

(2.) THE backdrop of facts leading on to the two Rules can be put in a short compass. The accused-petitioner, Prabhudayal Gupta, was arrested under Sections 468, 420 and 120b of the Indian penal Code read with Section 8 of the west Bengal Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958 (Act XXIV of 1958), in connection with the Behala P. S. case No. 72 dated 22. 6,73 and under Sections 468; 420 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 8 of the West bengal Anti-profiteering Act, 1958 (Act xxiv of 1958) in connection with the bhowanipur P. S. Case No. 294 dated 30. 6. 73. Bereft of " all verbiage, the prosecution case, inter alia, is that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy and collected the permits of a number of stockists of wheat bran making a clandestine sale after drawing the same from different flour mi Us. Most of the permits, it is alleged, were obtained in fictitious names of stockists who are non est. The petitioner was arrested on the 23rd July, 1973 and several cases were started against him and several others on different first information reports. He was admitted thereafter in the S. S. K, M. Hospital for treatment and on being discharged therefrom he was produced before the learned Magistrate at Alipore. An application for bail was made on his behalf on the ground that he was suffering from heart-trouble but the same was rejected. The accused-petitioner was kept in police custody till the 16th August, 1973 and in jail custody thereafter from the 17th August, 1973. A prayer made on his behalf for keeping him in a Nursing home under police vigilance was also rejected. Applications thereafter were made on his behalf from time to time for bail but, those were also rejected by the learned Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. The investigation proceeded and in course thereof several statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure as also two statements under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure code were recorded. There was a renewal of the prayer for bail and revisional applications, arising out of the two case mentioned above, were preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore but were ultimately rejected on the 13th September, 1973. The orders of rejection have been impugned and form the subject-matter of the present Rules. At the time when the Rules were issued by the Division Bench, the prayer for ad-interim bail was rejected "for the present".

(3.) THE contentions of Mr. Snehansu kr. Acharya, Senior Advocate (with. Mr. D. P. Kundu, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the accused petitioner in both the Rules, are of five; dimension;, one of which is of law and the: other four based on facts. Mr. Gorari Mitter, Advocate-General, West bengal (with Messrs Bipankar Gupta, standing Counsel, Promode Ranjan roy, Junior Govt. Advocate and Mr. J. Roy Choudhury, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the State joined issue ore all the grounds and further raised an ancillary contention that at this stage bail should not be granted.