Single judge bail application rejected. The bench observed that despite witnesses showing decomposition of the deceased's body, ocular statements and recovery of incriminating documents corroborated the incidents leading to the death. Due to the gravity of the offence, bail was denied.
Application for bail rejected.
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.
09.01.2023 24 sdas rejected
C.R.M. (DB) No. 7 of 2023
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No. 406 of 2022 dated 06.08.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/307/386/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In Re : Rakesh Dolui & Anr. ….. petitioners
Mr. Milan Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mihir Banerjee Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya
…. for the petitioners
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, learned APP Mrs. Sonali Das
….. for the State
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits they are in custody for 157 days. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. Though petitioners were arrested at the spot, motor cycle and stolen cash were recovered subsequently. Body of the deceased shows marks of de-composition which is highly unlikely as the death had occurred one day prior to the post mortem examination. Hence, they pray for bail.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners tried to flee from the spot and were arrested. Subsequently motor cycle with cash was recovered.
We have considered the materials on record. Statements of the eye-witnesses show that the petitioners apprehended a
2
truck on a public road pretending to be police personnel. They extracted money and papers from the occupants of the truck. They were unhappy with the quantum of money received. They assaulted the driver who died. Soon after the incident petitioners were arrested. Documents of the truck were recovered from them. Post mortem report shows marks of head injury resulting in death which corroborates the ocular statements relating to the incident.
In view of the aforesaid incriminating materials and gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.
The application for bail is, thus, rejected.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of committing an assault resulting in death.
Whether the recovery of incriminating articles and gravity of the offence justify rejecting the bail application.
Whether the decay of the deceased's body affects the credibility of the eye-witness statements.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Dolui & Anr.
The State
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
