Disposed

Akash Kumar Shaw@Akash Kr Shaw v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC20 Jun 2022CRM/5466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged bail granted to a co-accused due to delay in trial while records were pending for co-accuseds' criminal appeals. Court held it lacked power to review coordinate bench's directions but directed remittal of records to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

<b>1</b> Leave to apply refused. Application disposed of by dismissing the petition but directing remittal of records to the trial court for expedited conclusion within six months.

Akash Kumar Shaw@Akash Kr Shaw Vs State of West Bengal and… — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

20.06.2022. 84. Ct.No.28. as

¶2

C.R.M. 5466 of 2021

¶3

In Re: An application for cancellation of bail. In the matter of : Akash Kumar Shaw @ Akash Kr. Shaw. … Petitioner. Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. Gaganjyot Singh, Mr. Biswajit Mal, Mr. Rishav Kr. Singh. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Mmadhusudan Sur, ld. A.P.P., Mr. Aniket Mitra. ...for the State. Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Mr. Kanchan Roy. …for the O.P.

¶4

Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner assails bail granted to opposite party No.2 vide order dated 10.8.2021. He submits petitioner had approached this Court for bail in CRM 6848 of 2020. By order dated 24.9.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the prayer for bail directed the trial to be concluded by 31^st January, 2021 failing which trial court was directed to release the petitioner on bail. As trial did not conclude within the said time framed, consequent to such direction, opposite party no.2 was granted bail.

¶5

Mr. Singh strenuously contends trial could not proceed as the records of the case were before this Court in connection with Criminal Appeal Nos.472 of 2015 and CRA 510 of 2015 filed by co-accuseds who had been convicted in the instant case. He

¶6

¶7

further submits petitioner had absconded and was subsequently arrested. In this backdrop he prays for cancellation of bail.

¶8

Learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2 submits impugned bail order is a consequence of direction given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM 6848 of 2020. Delay in the matter cannot be attributed to the petitioner as the records were lying before this Court.

¶9

Learned Advocate for the State submits petitioner had absconded and was subsequently arrested and put on trial.

¶10

We have considered the materials on record. Co-accuseds have been put on trial and were convicted. They preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.472 of 2015 and CRA 510 of 2015. Lower court records were sent to this Court in connection with these appeals. In the meantime, petitioner was arrested. He applied for bail before this Court in CRM 6848 of 2020. By order dated 24.9.2020, a Co-ordinate Bench while rejecting his prayer for bail, directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 31^st January, 2021, failing which the petitioner would be released on bail. As the trial did not conclude, as aforesaid, petitioner has been released on bail.

¶11

We have examined the circumstances leading to delay in conclusion of trial which does not lie at the doorstep of the petitioner. Records of the case were lying in this Court in connection with criminal appeals filed by co-accuseds. Grant of bail was a consequence of directions given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As the bail granted to the petitioner is a consequence of directions contained in an earlier order passed

¶12

¶13

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion this Court does not have power to review such directions and cancel the bail granted to opposite party no.2. However, in order to ensure a quick conclusion of trial in the case, we direct the records of the Court to be forthwith remitted to the trial court.

¶14

Upon receipt of records, trial court shall proceed with the matter with utmost expedition and conclude the same at an early date preferably within six months from the date of receipt of lower court records without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

With this direction, the application is disposed of.

¶16

Department is directed to act in terms of the order and communicate the same to the trial court for necessary action.

¶17

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Akash Kumar Shaw@Akash Kr Shaw v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Kumar Shaw@Akash Kr Shaw v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasir Ali Mondal @ Nazir Khan Vs State of West Bengal

Mukesh Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Anup Roy @ Ashok @ Ashok Da @ Susanta Majumdar Vs State of West Bengal

Md. Sohidul Karim Vs State of West Bengal

Ansar Ali @ MD Ansar Ali Vs State of West Bengal

Priyanka Lad@Priyanka Prakash Lad Vs State of West Bengal