This order dismisses a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC connected to a case involving seized arms. The court held that the nature of the arms rendered the applicant unfit for bail.
Bail application dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
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.
19.07. 2022 item No.47 n.b. ct. no. 34
CRM(SB) 148 of 2022
In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Hemtabad P.S. Case No. 155 of 2022 dated 09.5.2022(Correspondent G.R. NO.1266 of 2022) Under Section 25(i)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act.
And
In Re: Subhajit Das & Anr.
…..petitioners.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Mr. Arup Sarkar, Ms. Subnam Laskar, Ms. Shyanti Poddar …..for the Petitioners
Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan, Ms. Debjani Dasgupta, Ms. B. Roy Choudhury
….. . for the State
Mr. Bardhan, learned advocate appearing for the State submits a report. Let the report be kept with the record.
Having regard to the nature of the arms, which have been seized in connection with the instant case, I am of the opinion that the present is not a fit case for bail
Accordingly, CRM(SB) 148 of 2022 is dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, are hereby disposed
of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
2
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail is appropriate in a case involving seized arms under Section 439 CrPC and the Arms Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subhajit Das & Anr.
State
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
