The High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by Abdul Halim and others. After perusing the charge-sheet and materials on record, the court rejected the prayer for bail and disposed of the applications.
Anticipatory bail application rejected and disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BP Sl.22
CRM 2795 of 2020 With CRAN 3146 of 2020
(Via Video Conference)
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the matter of : Abdul Halim @ Md. Abdul Alim & Anr..…petitioners
Mr. Anisur Rahman
..for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Apurba Kumar Dutta ..for the State.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the charges and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted and the detention of the petitioners is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of this court to the injury report.
We have perused the materials on record as also taken into account that the charge-sheet of the case
2
submitted way back in December, 2019.
Having considered the conduct of the petitioners as well as the materials of the case, we are not inclined to grant any privilege to the petitioners for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
The application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. 2795 of 2020 and CRAN 3146 of 2020 are disposed of.
(Samapti Chatterjee, J. )
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC.
Whether the petitioners are falsely implicated and the detention is unwarranted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Halim @ Md. Abdul Alim & Anr.
State
Samapti Chatterjee
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
