Allowed

Dulu Barman v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC12 Sept 2023CRM(DB)/452/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case. The court observed that the prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the crime was far-fetched due to lack of corroboration, despite a heinous nature of the offense, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties and complying with territorial jurisdiction and non-interference conditions.

Dulu Barman Vs the State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

12.09.2023

¶2

02 mb

¶3

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

¶4

CRM (DB) 452 of 2023

¶5

In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.08.2023 in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 108 of 2023 dated 04.03.2023 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal.

¶6

In the matter of : Dulu Barman

¶7

… petitioner

¶8

Mr. Sudip Guha …for the petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Mr. Subhasish Misra

¶9

…..for the State.

¶10

The petitioner contends that the petitioner was apprehended in Jammu and Kashmir for an offence perpetrated allegedly in West Bengal. It is contended that there is no direct nexus between the alleged crime and the petitioner.

¶11

It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody from May this year and charge sheet has already been filed.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is contended that the petitioner has been apprehended by the police from Jammu and Kashmir and was trying to escape the crime scene. It is further argued that the release of the petitioner on bail shall vitiate the entire trial.

¶13

¶14

As it appears from the submissions of the parties, the proximity between the alleged crime and the petitioner’s alleged involvement is far-fetched, at least prima facie .

¶15

First, no eye-witness has corroborated the allegation that the petitioner was there in the crime scene at all. Although the nature of crime is heinous insofar as the body was mutilated, even the family members of the victim, apparently, had not lodged any complaint against the petitioner initially. The only ground which seems to play in the mind of the prosecution for the present is that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with the victim lady. However, mere illegitimacy of a relationship, even if established, does not establish a direct nexus to the crime alleged.

¶16

Moreover, since the charge sheet has already been submitted, we do not find any reason to further curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner, of course, subject to certain stipulations.

¶17

Accordingly, CRM (DB) 452 of 2023 is allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court

¶18

¶19

during the entire period of trial and shall attend on each and every date of trial.

¶20

Moreover, the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶22

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Dulu Barman v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dulu Barman v. the 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

Saddam Hussain @ Rahit Khan and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Raju Das Vs the State of West Bengal

Goutam Barman Vs the State of West Bengal

Sahabuddin Ali @ Babu Vs the State of West Bengal

Karan Das Vs State of West Bengal

Manoj Biswas Vs the State of West Bengal