In re bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case. The High Court rejected the bail plea due to strong incriminating evidence and pending trial while directing completion within six months.
Bail application rejected; trial court directed to complete trial within six months.
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.
CRM No.5532 of 2021 Via video conference
21.12.21 (S.R.) In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Sl.227 Procedure filed in connection with Ashoknagar Police Station Case Ct.32 No.150 of 2017 dated 25/02/2017 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (S.T. Case No.01(11)2017);
And
In re: Joydeb Koley … Petitioner.
Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh Mr. Sourav Bera … for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Suman De …for the State.
After prolonged custody of four years and five months, the instant application is filed praying for bail.
The learned lawyer for the petitioner submitted that the trial is in progress but delayed. Only seven witnesses are examined out of thirtytwo charge sheeted witnesses. There is no chance of immediate completion of trial. Whole evidence is circumstantial in nature and the present petitioner is falsely implicated. Therefore, in the present circumstances, the petitioner should be released on bail.
The learned lawyer appearing for the State invited our attention to the statements of witnesses and the seizure list which contain strong incriminating materials against the present petitioner. Although, the learned lawyer for the State submitted that two prime charge sheeted witnesses have deposed, still number of other important witnesses are yet to be examined. Since, the offences are very grave and serious, he opposes the grant of bail.
We have perused the case diary and heard the rival submissions. The case diary contains very strong incriminating elements against the present petitioner. Trial is in progress. Some of the charge sheeted
2
witnesses have been examined and some are yet to be examined. In this conspectus of fact, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion and the bail petition stands rejected.
However, we direct the learned trial court to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order and request the learned Public Prosecutor to ensure that trial is not procrastinated for absence of witnesses.
The application for bail being CRM No.5532 of 2021 is, accordingly, disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a specified time frame.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Joydeb Koley
State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
