Cr.R.M. in Re Khodadil Sk challenged an order granting bail in a Section 306 IPC case involving a death by hanging. Bench dismissed the application, noting the trial judge considered relevant factors and the bail order was well-reasoned.
Application for cancellation of bail dismissed; threat to witnesses open for redress.
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.
10.08.2023 tkm/ct 28 sl no.30
C.R.M. (DB) 2784 of 2023
In Re : An application under section 439(2) read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
| And In Re : Khodadil Sk @ Khodadil Sekh |
……. petitioner |
|---|---|
Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. S Azam Mr. J Talukder .... |
.. for the petitioner |
| Ms. Z N Khan | |
| Mr. Arup Sarkar .... |
.. for the State |
| Mr. Bitasok Banerjee | |
| .... | .. for OP no. 2 |
Order dated 10.4.2023 granting bail to opposite party no. 2 has been assailed.
Learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that victim had been murdered. Statement of the minor daughter shows petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. Without considering the incriminating materials and gravity of offence, bail was granted.
Learned lawyer for opposite party no. 2 denies and disputes such allegations. He submits allegation of murder has not been established. Charge sheet has been filed under section 306 IPC. Learned lawyer for the State produces the case diary.
We have considered the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid submissions. Victim housewife had an illicit relationship with the opposite party no. 2. She died under unnatural circumstances. Initially FIR was registered for murder. Post mortem report shows she died due to hanging. Opposite party no. 2 was
2
arrested and after 60 days of detention he was released on bail. Learned judge while considering the bail, noted post mortem report nullified a case of murder. Victim did not leave behind any suicide note implicating the opposite party no. 2 as an abettor to her suicide.
Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion the trial judge had considered relevant factors including the nature of offence, evidence collected in the course of investigation and necessity of further detention. In this factual matrix the impugned order appears to be a well-reasoned one and does not call for interference.
Accordingly, application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.
In the event opposite party no. 2 threatens or intimidates witnesses in future, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate redress in accordance with law, if so advised.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial judge erred in granting bail to the accused without considering incriminating materials and gravity of offence.
Whether the impugned bail order which noted post mortem report nullifying murder case required interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khodadil Sk @ Khodadil Sekh
The State
The Victim's Opposite Party no. 2
Gaurang Kanth
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
