The High Court considered an application for bail under CrPC 439 in connection with an offence under IPC 302. Finding strong incriminating materials and the seriousness of the charge, the Court refused bail but directed the lower court to commit the case within a month.
Bail application refused; case to be committed within one month.
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.
04.03.2022
Court No.32 rpan /16
CRM (DB) 219 of 2022
In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Harishchandrapur Police Station Case no.98 of 2020 dated 05.02.2020 under Sections 341/326/307/302/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
And
In Re. : Umar Faruque @ Umar Faruk
Mr. Himanshu De, Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Asfaak Ahmed, Mr. Subhrajit Dey … for the petitioner. Mr. Neguive Ahmed, Ms. Trina Mitra
… for the State.
Mr. De, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in custody for about 748 days. There had been no substantial progress in the trial after the petitioner’s prayer for bail was last rejected on 9th August, 2021. Co-accused persons, similarly situated with the petitioner, had already been enlarged on bail and in the said conspectus, further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary and he may be enlarged on bail on any stringent condition.
Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and submits that the petitioner is the principal accused and draws our attention to the statements of the witnesses as well as the post-mortem report. Answering our query, he submits that supplementary charge sheet has been
2
submitted before the learned court below on 17th January, 2022, however, the case has not been committed.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials in the case diary.
Prima facie , there are strong incriminating materials on record against the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the offence, its ramifications, the injuries inflicted upon the deceased and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour. As such, his prayer for bail is refused at this stage.
However, the learned court below is directed to commit the case within a month from the date of communication of this order.
With the above observations, the application for bail, being CRM (DB) 219 of 2022 is disposed of.
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 bail may be dispensed in the light of strong incriminating materials and the seriousness of the offence.
Whether the case is fit for commitment by the lower court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Umar Faruque @ Umar Faruk
The State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
