Dismissed¶17

Amal Middya v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC1 Feb 2024CRM (A)/299/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 438 CrPC; C.R.M.(A) 299 of 2024; Amal Middya; Tamluk Police Station Case No. 89 of 2023; Sections 354/326/307/34 IPC; Charge Sheet No. 282 of 2023; Sections 354/307/506/34 IPC; assault; neck injuries; injury report; co-accused Nitai Pramanik; C.R.M. (DB) 1788 of 2023; Test Identification Parade; gravity of offence; application dismissed; Debangsu Basak; Md. Shabbar Rashidi; decision date 01.02.2024.

What did the court decide?

This court decided it was unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the petitioner's involvement therein. ¶16

Amal Middya Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

01.02.2024 02 Ct. No. 29 S.D. REJECTED

¶2

C.R.M.(A) 299 of 2024

¶3

In Re:- In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 89 of 2023 dated 02.02.2023 under Section 354/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code subsequently Charge Sheet bearing No. 282 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 under Sections 354/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶4

And

¶5

In Re : Amal Middya ...… petitioner

¶6

Md. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Tasnim Ahamed Mr. Dhiman Banerjee …for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Partha Pratim Das Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee …for the State

¶8

Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the police filed charge sheet. No overact can be attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused was enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench.

¶10

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that two persons suffered injuries. He refers to the injury report. He also refers to an order dated May 2, 2023 passed in C.R.M. (DB) 1788 of 2023 rejecting the prayer of bail of the co-accused, namely Nitai Pramanik.

¶11

¶12

Two persons received injuries in an incident of assault. Both received injuries on the neck which the Coordinate Bench while rejecting the prayer for bail of the Nitai Pramanik observed to be life threatening.

¶13

One of the injured stated that the person who assaulted her and the other injured was unknown to her.

¶14

Co-accused was identified in Test Identification Parade.

¶15

Incident of assault is serious. The involvement of the petitioner therein cannot be overlooked. Requirement of Test Identification parade is present.

¶16

Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶17

The application being CRM (A) 299 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶18

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶19

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

Amal Middya v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amal Middya v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmalochan Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Abhishek Podder Vs State of West Bengal

Ajoy Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sharban Kumar Gupta Vs State of West Bengal

Shankar Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

Hasikul Islam and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal