Allowed

Nabiul Hussain and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC18 Jan 2021CRM/4/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail regarding a hit-and-run case under Section 304 IPC. While noting the State's contention that the vehicle was driven by the petitioners, the court held it was a fit case for bail without recording specific findings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds, complying with conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC.

Nabiul Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

18.01.2021 SL No.32 AP/ss

¶2

CRM 4 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)

¶3

Nabiul Hussain and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal

¶4

… Petitioners.

¶5

… Respondent.

¶6

M/s Arijit Ghosh and Swarnali Ghosh (Sengupta), Advocates …for the Petitioners present in Court. M/s Ujjwal Luksom and Namrata Das, Advocates

¶7

…for the State present in Court.

¶8

The present application has been filed seeking pre arrest bail in Kalchini Police Station Case No. 41 of 2020 dated 27.03.2020 registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a case of hit and run. FIR was registered against unknown persons. It was later on, on the basis of footage from a CCTV camera installed near the place of incident that the petitioners were involved in the case in hand. There is no direct material showing involvement of the petitioners except that CCTV footage, which does not contain the accident. It only shows that the vehicle had passed through that road. At the most, offence can be under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. No offence is made out under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case of hit and run. During investigation from footage from a CCTV camera installed near the place of accident, the vehicle which

¶11

¶12

CRM 4 of 2021

¶13

was involved in the accident was found. It was being driven by the petitioners. Hence, a case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the petitioners are not entitled to pre arrest bail.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, however, without recording any finding thereon, we find it to be a fit case for grant of pre arrest bail.

¶15

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioners shall be bound by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶16

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Rajesh Bindal, J.)

¶18

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)

Nabiul Hussain and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabiul Hussain and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biresh Barman @ Bandi Barman Vs the State of West Bengal

Bishnu Roy @ Subho Vs the State of West Bengal

Manab Roy Vs the State of West Bengal