The Calcutta High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in a murder case. The court refused the plea due to the seriousness of injuries sustained by the victim, despite no specific act being attributed to the applicant in the police statement.
Prayer for anticipatory bail refused and 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.
13 08.03.2022 rrc
CRM (A) 467 of 2022 (via video conference) Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the matter of : Sk. Imdadul Islam
….. petitioner
Mr. Rana Mukherjee Ms. Munmun Tewary …..For the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. APP Mr. Soumik Ganguli
Apprehending arrest in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No. 890/2021 dated 24.08.2021 under Sections 341/326/307/354/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been preferred.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a hot altercation between the parties and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. No specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Three co-accused persons, who are similarly situated with the petitioner, have already been granted anticipatory bail. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation may not be necessary.
Mr. Ganguli, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and draws our attention to the medical reports and the statements of the injured lady, namely, Chandana Maji, who is the wife of the deceased as well as the post mortem report.
2
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials in the case diary.
In the statement of the injured lady, as recorded under Section 164 of the Code, no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Considering the nature of accusations, the role assigned to the petitioner, the nature of the injuries, to which the victim succumbed, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner and as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is refused.
The application being CRM (A) 467 of 2022 is, accordingly, dismissed.
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 the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a murder case.
Whether the role assigned to the applicant and the nature of injuries justify refusing anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sk. Imdadul Islam
State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
