Dismissed

Anil Mondal v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC21 Apr 2023CRM (DB)/963/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge granted an application for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The application was rejected due to gravity of offences causing death/injury and insufficient delay. Court directed trial court to conclude trial within two years.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to conclude trial within two years by recording prosecution evidence during Judge vacancy.

Anil Mondal Vs State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

21.04.2023 Sl. No.26 akd [Rejected]

¶2

C. R. M. (DB) 963 of 2023

¶3

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶4

And

¶5

In Re: Anil Mondal

¶6

… … Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Aniket Mitra

¶8

… … for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee .. ld. Public Prosecutor Mr. Neguive Ahmed .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. Trina Mitra

¶10

… … for the State

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for more than four years. It is further submitted there is inordinate delay in trial. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

¶12

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits delay in the matter was due to circumstances beyond control of the prosecution.

¶13

We have considered the materials on record. Statements of eyewitnesses implicate the petitioner in the offence. One person died and another was grievously injured. With regard to delay, we note case was adjourned due to the prevailing pandemic condition in 2020-2021. That apart, adjournments were taken on behalf of the defence on a number of occasions. Delay was also caused due to systemic reasons like vacancy in the trial court and cessation of work by lawyers. A number of eyewitnesses are yet to be examined. Under such circumstances and in view of gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶14

The application for bail is thus rejected.

¶15

¶16

Trial court is directed to fix schedules for examination of witnesses at regular intervals and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within two years from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case of vacancy, the Judge-in-charge shall record the prosecution evidence.

¶17

Parties shall communicate a copy of this order to the trial court for due compliance.

¶18

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶19

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Anil Mondal v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Mondal 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

Sourav Shikdar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Pintu Shaw @ Pintu Kumar Shaw Vs State of West Bengal

Mujit Ali Vs State of West Bengal

Palash Das Vs State of West Bengal

Sadek Ansari Vs State of West Bengal

Pintu Laskar @ Sampata Vs State of West Bengal