Abbasuddin Sk v. State of West Bengal
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court disposed of a bail application rejecting it and ordering a custodial trial because the petitioner misled the Court by denying a previous rejection in CRM (DB) 18 of 2022.
What did the court decide?
Bail denied and custodial trial ordered.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
04.02.2022 Sl. 39 C.R.M. (DB) 196 of 2022 Court No.29 sourav In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of (Rejected) Criminal Procedure filed on 19.01.2022 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 243 of 2021 dated 16.06.2021 under Sections 341/323/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the matter of: Abbasuddin Sk . ….petitioner. Mr. Goutam Mishra Mr. Nilendra Narayan Ray …for the Petitioner. Mr. Neguive Ahmed Mr. Trina Mitra …for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail.
The averment in the first paragraph of the petition is that the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble Court earlier.
Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the fact that one earlier application for bail being CRM (DB) 18 of 2022 was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on January 27, 2022. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts.
The averment in the first paragraph of this petition is that no earlier application for bail was made before this Court. It appears from the records that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court in CRM (DB) 18 of 2022 which was dismissed on January 27, 2022. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts.
The State will initiate proceedings inter alia under Section 340 as against the deponent of the present petition.
Since the petitioner misled the Hon’ble Court, mere rejection of the prayer for bail will not be sufficient in the interest of justice. In order to arrest this propensity to mislead Court, it would be appropriate to direct custodial trial of the petitioner.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner misled the Court by falsely averring no earlier bail was sought when CRM (DB) 18 of 2022 exists.
Whether a custodial trial order is appropriate given the petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding earlier bail applications.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sourav
- respondent
State
Coram
Debangsu Basak
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRM (DB)/196/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court