Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed bail application filed for accused charged under sections 302/34 IPC in a murder case, holding prima facie direct involvement based on presence at the place of occurrence.
Bail application CRM No. 491 of 2021 is dismissed at this stage.
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.
03.03.2021 Court No.28 Item No. 17 Krishnendu Bail Rejected
CRM 491 of 2021 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
And
In Re : Monojit Mondal @ Fochen & Anr.
Petitioners
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Atish Kumar Biswas Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Amit Singh
For the Petitioners
Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Suman De
For the State
The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 366 of 2020 dated 06.09.2020 under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. No overt act has been attributed to them. The fatal blow was from the brother of the deceased. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and as such further detention of the petitioners, who are in custody for more than 160 days, is not necessary.
Mr. Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners’ prayer for bail and draws our attention to the complaint and the statements of the wife and daughter of the deceased.
2
We have perused the materials in the case diary. The allegations against the petitioners, prima facie, do not appear to be in the abstract. There are materials on record, which disclose the direct involvement of the petitioners as all of them were present at the place of occurrence.
In view thereof, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioners. As such, their prayer for bail is dismissed at this stage.
Accordingly, the application for bail, being CRM No. 491 of 2021 is disposed of.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners charged with murder and culpable homicide.
Whether the direct involvement of the petitioners at the place of occurrence precludes the exercise of discretion in their favour for bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Monojit Mondal @ Fochen & Anr.
The State
Tirthankar Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
