The Single Bench dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed by Asish Dhar @ Ghota under section 438 Cr.P.C. for default due to the applicant's failure to appear in court despite prior notices and presence of the State prosecutor.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed for default in the absence of the applicant.
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.
07.07.2021 Court No.30 Item No.15 Krishnendu Dismissed
CRM 2857 of 2020 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Pundibari Police Station Case No. 682 of 2019 dated 31.12.2019 under sections 448/341/325/326/307//302 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In Re: Asish Dhar @ Ghota
Petitioner
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. A.P.P. Mr. Dipankar Paramanick
For the State
Records reveal that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner
when the matter was taken up for hearing on 18th March, 2020 and again on 16th December, 2020.
Today also no one appears on behalf of the petitioner and no accommodation has been sought for though Mr. Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, is present.
In view thereof, the application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 2857 of 2020, is dismissed for default.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for anticipatory bail should be disposed of in the absence of the applicant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Asish Dhar @ Ghota
State
Suvra Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
