Allowed

Chandana Mahaldar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC13 Sept 2023CRM (DB)/3047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two female petitioners detained for 88 days in an assault case. Considering the long detention and lack of flight risk, the court released them on a bond with sureties, subject to standard conditions of appearing in trial and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local.

Chandana Mahaldar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

13.09.2023 Sl. No.17 akd [ALLOWED]

¶2

C. R. M. (DB) 3047 of 2023

¶3

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.07.2023 in connection with Manickchak Police Station Case No.454 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (G.R. Case No.3874 of 2023)

¶4

And

¶5

In Re: Chandana Mahaldar & Anr.

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Rana Mukhopadhyay Mr. Riddhiman Mukherjee

¶8

… … for the petitioners

¶9

Mr. Madhusudan Sur .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Dipankar Paramanick

¶10

… … for the State

¶11

Petitioners are the women folk.

¶12

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are in custody for about 88 days. It is further submitted petitioners are not the principal assailants and have been falsely implicated. Accordingly, they pray for bail.

¶13

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits petitioners also participated in the assault.

¶14

We have considered the materials on record including the statements of witnesses. The principal accusation is against one Suranjan Mahaldar and Sarban Mahaldar who assaulted the victim. Suranjan assaulted the victim with a spade and Sarban with a hansua . It is alleged petitioner no.1 had poked the victim with a rod and petitioner no.2 had assaulted him with fists and blows. Possibility of false exaggeration to implicate all family members in the crime cannot be ruled out. There is no chance of abscondence of the petitioners. Under such circumstances and in view of the

¶15

¶16

period of detention suffered by them, we are of the opinion further detention of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶17

Therefore, the petitioners, namely (1) Chandana Mahaldar & (2) Jamuna Mahaldar @ Jamina Das , be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda subject to condition that the said petitioners shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

In the event they fail to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail automatically without reference to this court.

¶19

The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.

¶20

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶21

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Chandana Mahaldar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandana Mahaldar and Anr. 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

Jagannath Pramanik Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Basudev Sen Vs State of West Bengal

Sankar Das Vs State of West Bengal

Abdul Sk. and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Nargis Bibi Vs State of West Bengal

Basudeb Biswas Vs State of West Bengal