Dismissed

Subhasish Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC14 Jun 2023CRM (DB)/1988/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed no bail to Subhasish Dasgupta, the petitioner, who was charged with offenses including dacoity, murder, and illegal possession of arms under the Arms Act. The Court held that materials in the case diary suggested complicity and that heinous charges precluded bail at this stage of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected and the application for bail was dismissed.

Subhasish Dasgupta Vs State of West Bengal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

14.06.2023

¶2

Serial no. 01 [Dd] (Rejected)

¶3

CRM (DB) 1988 of 2023

¶4

In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Beliaghata Police Station Case No. 5 of 2022 dated 22^nd January 2022 under Sections 120(b), 395, 397 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1)(B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : Subhasish Dasgupta … …Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Biswajit Manna, Mr. Rupayan Deb, Ms. Priya Nandy, Ms. Rituparna Gupta, Advocates

¶8

… … For the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. APP Mr. Subroto Roy, Advocates … …For the State

¶10

Mr. Souvik Mitter, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Mr. Sourab Chatterjee Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Mr. Anirban Dutta, Ms. Madhumita Basak, Advocates .. …For the de facto complainant

¶11

Petitioner prays for bail.

¶12

The application for bail is taken up for consideration subsequent to the order dated June 5, 2023.

¶13

On June 5, 2023, the Court was informed that the charges were framed and that the next date fixed before the trial Court was for the purpose of recording evidence of the prosecution.

¶14

It appears from the records that, on June 6, 2023, when, the case was taken up by the trial Court, the learned

¶15

¶16

Judge noted the absence of the defence counsel and, therefore, adjourned the case till July 14, 2023 for evidence of the prosecution. The learned Judge expressed helplessness in recording the evidence of the prosecution in absence of the learned advocate for the defence.

¶17

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is appearing in person. He is an advocate by profession. He was falsely implicated. There are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The present police case is offshoot to such matrimonial dispute. He refers to two statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submits that, taking such statements at the highest, the complicity of the petitioner in the incident of dacoity does appear. No closed circuit television footage was produced.

¶18

State and the de facto complainant are represented. As noted above, charges were framed as against the accuseds including the petitioner. June 6, 2023 was fixed by the trial Court for the purpose of recording evidence of the prosecution. Evidence of the prosecution could not be recorded on such date due to absence of the defence counsel. Advocates for the other parties were present.

¶19

We perused the two statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The two statements cannot be construed to mean that, the petitioner is not complicit in the incident of dacoity with which he charged with. The veracity of the evidence is to be tested once it is led at the trial Court.

¶20

The complicity of the petitioner appears in the charges alleged on the basis of the materials available in the case diary.

¶21

The petitioner is charged with committing heinous offences.

¶22

¶23

The police case is dated January 22, 2022. The trial commenced with the defence not permitting expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶24

The case diary contains materials to suggest that there are call detail recordings between the petitioner and the other accuseds. There are also materials in the case diary to suggest money trail between the mother of one of the co-accuseds and the petitioner. Petitioner was identified in the test identification parade.

¶25

In such circumstances, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected .

¶27

CRM (DB) 1988 of 2023 is dismissed .

¶28

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶29

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

Subhasish Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhasish Dasgupta v. State of West Bengal

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

Kesharwani Brothers & Another Vs Dy. Director, Enforcement Directorrat

Sangeeta Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Sayantika Das

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Sarbojit Mukherjee

Avishek Banik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abdul Kader Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.