On an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the court observed that the gravity of the offences and nature of allegations necessitated custodial interrogation. Consequently, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; application dismissed.
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.
04.03.2021 Court No.28 Item No. 11 Krishnendu Rejected
CRM 8178 of 2020 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
And In Re : Nakul Sarkar & Ors. Petitioners Mr. Mazhar Hossain Chowdhury For the Petitioners Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya Md. Kutubuddin For the State Mr. Koustav Bagchi For the De facto complainant
Apprehending arrest in connection with Gangarampur P.S. Case No. 343 of 2020 dated 28.09.2020 under sections 343/323/336/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the petitioners have filed the present application.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there was a dispute between the family of the petitioners and the family of the deceased. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are in the abstract and the materials would not reveal any involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.
The learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail and draws our attention to the dying declaration and the statements of the witnesses, as recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2
Mr. Koustav Bagchi, learned advocate appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials in the case diary, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations and the extent of complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioners. As such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 8178 of 2020 is, thus, dismissed.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners satisfy the conditions for granting anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Whether the gravity of the offences and allegations warrant a refusal of anticipatory bail?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nakul Sarkar & Ors.
State
Tirthankar Ghosh
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
