The single-judge bench dismissed the bail cancellation application as a default matter because the petitioner failed to appear, despite the prosecution being represented.
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.
09.07.2021 Court No.30 Item No.26 Krishnendu Dismissed
CRM 3753 of 2019 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; And In Re: Iasmina Parvin Petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Kumar Ghosh Mr. Arindam Sen For the State
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner and no accommodation
has been sought for though Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for
the State, is present.
In view thereof, the application for cancellation of bail, being CRM 3753 of 2019, is dismissed for default.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iasmina Parvin
State
Suvra Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
