Single judge order dismissing an anticipatory bail application (CRM 122 of 2021) for default as the petitioner failed to appear in court without seeking accommodation.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed for default for non-appearance of the petitioner.
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.
23.11.2021
Item No.35 Ct.No.1 dc./gsd
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
C.R.M. 122 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
And
In the matter of : Kamal Barman
... Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Chakraborty Mr. Biswarup Roy ... For the State.
Records reflect that adjournments have been sought for from 27.1.2021 and several adjournments are reflected on subsequent dates which were at the instance of the petitioner.
Today, when the matter is called, none appears for the petitioner and no accommodation has been sought for.
Learned Advocate for the State is appearing along with the case diary.
In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 122 of 2021, is dismissed for default.
2
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly obtained from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be dismissed due to the petitioner's non-appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamal Barman
State
Tirthankar Ghosh
Subrata Talukdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
