The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court declined to grant relief due to the petitioner's absence and lack of representation on previous hearing dates.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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.
28.09.2021 tkm/ct 29 sl no. 30
C.R.M. 478 of 2021
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Ghola P.S Case no. 632 of 2020 dated 29.12.2020 under sections 341/323/326/307/506/34 of the IPC
And
In Re : Biswanath Das …… petitioner
Md. Anwar Hossain Ms. Sreyashee Biswas
…… for the State
None appears for the petitioner even on second call.
On two previous dates, i.e. on March 5, 2021 and April 7,
2021 the petitioner was not represented in court.
On the request of the Court, learned advocate for the State tried to contact the learned advocate for the petitioner over telephone after the first call. He submits that the learned advocate for the petitioner did not receive his call.
Considering the conduct of the petitioner in Court and considering the materials in the case diary at this stage, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Debangsu Basak, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner was absent on previous dates without representation?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Biswanath Das
State
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee
Debangsu Basak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
