Murshida Begum v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a petition challenging an Additional Sessions Judge's bail order. Finding the allegation of harassment by opposite party no. 2 to be vague and bereft of specifics for dates or times, the court held that no interference with the reasoned bail order was warranted. The court noted the petitioner could seek appropriate relief if threats to witnesses occur.
What the court decided
15.11.2021 tkm/ct 28 sl no. 129
C.R.M. 1216 of 2021
In Re : An application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
And In Re : Murshida Begum ……. petitioner
Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Asit Nayek
..... for the petitioner
Order dated 4.9.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting bail has been assailed. Learned counsel submits that after grant of bail, the opposite party no. 2 is harassing the petitioner.
We have considered the material on record as well as impugned order granting bail. The said order was passed after considering the materials on record including the case diary. It is a reasoned one. With regard to the allegation of misuse of liberty, we have perused the complaint lodged by the petitioner which is bereft of particulars with regard to the date or time of alleged harassment by the opposite party no. 2.
In view of the vagueness of the allegations of harassment, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of bail granted to opposite party no. 2.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the bail order granting liberty to the opposite party given vague allegations of harassment by witnesses.
Whether the vagueness of the harassment complaint warrants cancelling or modifying the bail granted by Sessions Court.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Murshida Begum
Coram
Bivas Pattanayak
Joymalya Bagchi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRM/1216/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court