In an application for bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case (IPC 302/34), the High Court refused to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner. This decision followed a bail refusal in identical circumstances by a coordinate bench.
The prayer for bail granted to the petitioner is refused and the application is 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.
11.03.2022 Court No.32 Item No. 03 Avijit Mitra
C.R.M. (DB) No.189 of 2022
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
And
In Re : Bablu Malik @ Mallick
Petitioner
Ms. Pampa Dey Dhabal For the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya For the State Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya, Mr. Subhrojyoti Ghosh
For the de facto complainant
The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners in connection with Kotulpur Police Station Case No. 199 of 2021 dated 11.08.2021 under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ms. Dey Dhabal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Upon completion of investigation chargesheet has already been submitted and as such, further detention of the petitioner, who is in custody for about 210 days, is not necessary and he may be granted bail on any stringent condition.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and draws our attention to the statement of the witnesses as recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code as well as the post-mortem report. He further
2
submits that the prayer for bail of one Raju Malik, who is similarly situated with the petitioner, was refused by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 7th January, 2022.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Upon assessing the materials in the case diary, it prima facie appears that the role assigned to the petitioner herein is similar to that of Raju Malik, whose prayer for bail was turned down by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court earlier and as such, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner and his prayer for bail is refused, at this stage.
Accordingly, the application for bail, being CRM (DB) No.189 of 2022, is 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)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in the present FIR.
Bablu Malik @ Mallick
The State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
