The High Court rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC by petitioners charged with offences under Sections 498A, 326, 307, 34, and 302 IPC. The court found prima facie materials disclosing direct involvement given the gravity of the offence and denied the prayer.
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.
08.03.2021 Court No.28 Item No. 30 Krishnendu Rejected
CRM 725 of 2021 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 445 of 2018 dated 22.09.2018 under sections 498(A)/326/307/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code;
And
In Re : Bidhan Nath & Anr.
Petitioners Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Mr. Anindya Sundar Das Ms. Ananya Chakraborty Mr. Paramesh Chakraborty For the Petitioners Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, ld. P.P. Mr. Partha Pratim Das Mrs. Manashi Roy
For the State
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband and the petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl was solemnized about twelve years ago. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are unfounded. He further submits that from the post-mortem report, it would be evident that there is no injury caused by any blunt weapon like iron rod. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been filed and as such further detention of the petitioners, who are in custody for 900 days, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Mr. Das learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners’ prayer for bail and draws our attention to the dying declaration, the post-mortem report and the statements of
2
the witnesses, as recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
We have perused the materials in the case diary and, prima facie, we find materials disclosing direct involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged offence. Considering the gravity of the offence and the extent of complicity of the petitioners, we are we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioners. As such, their prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. The application for bail, being CRM 725 of 2021 is, thus, dismissed.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
Bidhan Nath & Anr.
The State
Tirthankar Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
