Dismissed

Sekendar Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Aug 2022CRM (DB)/2028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner and private opposite parties. It found no material irregularity in the Sessions Court's appreciation of facts and that post-bail misconduct allegations were unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail dismissed; status quo ante maintained.

Sekendar Khan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

24.08.2022 Serial no.49 Aloke

¶2

CRM (DB) 2028 of 2022

¶3

In re : An Application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶4

-And-

¶5

In the matter of : Sekendar Khan

¶6

Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate

¶7

Mr. S.S. Saha, Advocate

¶8

… … For the Petitioner Ms. Zareen N. Khan, Advocate

¶9

Mr. Ashok Das, Advocate

¶10

… …For the State Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan, Advocate Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal, Advocate

¶11

… … For the opposite party nos. 2 to 14

¶12

Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record.

¶13

Petitioner prays for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court on June 9, 2022.

¶14

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge proceeded on an erroneous appreciation of materials facts.

¶15

Learned Judge proceeded on the basis that compliance of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Moreover, forged death certificate was not seized by the State.

¶16

Learned Advocate appearing for the State reliance upon instruction which be taken on record.

¶17

The private opposite parties are represented.

¶18

There are two grounds canvassed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. One ground is the erroneous appreciation of material facts and the other is post bail mis-conduct. On erroneous appreciation of material facts, we find from the order that the learned Judge proceeded to consider the materials in the case diary. He discussed the materials which he deemed to be appropriate and proceeded to exercise the jurisdiction in a particular way.

¶19

We find no material irregularity in the exercise of such discretion warranting interference by us.

¶20

¶21

So far as the post bail mis-conduct is concerned, the allegations remain unsubstantiated at this stage.

¶22

In such circumstances, we are unable to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the private opposite parties. CRM (DB) 2028 of 2022 is dismissed.

¶23

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶24

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

Sekendar Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekendar Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashim Barman Vs State of West Bengal

Bahadur Mia Vs State of West Bengal

Rajat Das Vs State of West Bengal

Debasis Mondal@Debasish Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

State of West Bengal Vs Rajat Chakraborty @ Rajot Kumar Chakraborty

Krishnapada Sahis Vs State of West Bengal