Dismissed¶4

Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC18 Nov 2024CRM (DB)/2727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu; bail rejected; CRM (DB) 2727 of 2024; High Court of Calcutta; Section 439 CrPC; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; second arrest; two-year custody; absconding for six years; delayed trial; 4 of 17 witnesses examined; six prior bail rejections; prima facie involvement in alleged murder; trial expedited; Apurba Sinha Ray J.; Arijit Banerjee J.; decided 18-11-2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; no relief to the petitioner beyond a request to the learned trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and communication of the order to the Court below by the parties. ¶4

Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu Vs the State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — in custody for over two years after his second arrest, with only 4 of 17 chargesheet witnesses examined and no prospect of early trial conclusion — should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC despite his record of six-year abscondence and repeated prior refusals of bail.

¶1

Court's answer

On the materials on record, the Court found that the petitioner had absconded for more than six years, preventing expeditious progression of the trial, and that enlarging him on bail would create a chance of further abscondence.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

In view of the materials on record and the petitioner's prima facie involvement in the alleged murder, the Court was not inclined to allow the bail prayer at this stage.

¶3

Key takeaways

Alongside dismissal of the bail application, the learned trial Court was requested to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, and the order was to be communicated by the parties to the learned Court below.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Section 439 CrPC (as amended under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) — Calcutta High Court (Apurba Sinha Ray and Arijit Banerjee, JJ.) dismissed the bail application of Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu, in custody for over two years after his second arrest in an alleged murder case: the Court found he had earlier absconded for more than six years after being granted bail, stalling the trial (only 4 of 17 chargesheet witnesses examined), and that his bail prayer had been rejected on merits at least six times before; given his prima facie involvement in the alleged murder and the risk of further abscondence, bail was refused, with a request to the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶1

¶2

18-11-2024 CRM (DB) 2727 of 2024

¶3

(ct. no.29) S. De ( Rejected )

¶4

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of : Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu.

¶7

……Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty,

¶9

……for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, ……for the State.

¶11

Dictated by Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

¶12

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years after his second arrest.

¶13

Warrant of Arrest was issued due to certain miscommunication. However, there is no chance of early conclusion of trial since only 4 witnesses out of 17 chargesheet named witnesses have been examined. He may be granted bail on any condition.

¶14

Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to the materials on record showing that the petitioner along with others who were granted bail absconded for six years and as a result of which the trial could not be completed within a reasonable time. He prays for rejection of the prayer for bail.

¶15

We have gone through the materials on record and we find that the petitioner absconded for more than six years and as a result of which the trial could not be proceeded with expeditiously. If we enlarge the petitioner on bail, there is a

¶16

Signed By : SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 19 th of November 2024 02:15:14 PM

¶17

¶18

chance of further abscondence on his behalf. We also see that the petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected on merits at least on six occasions. In view of the materials on record and the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged murder, we are not inclined to allow the bail prayer of the petitioner at this stage.

¶19

CRM (DB) 2727 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶20

However, the learned trial Court is requested to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible

¶21

Let this order be communicated by the parties to the learned Court below.

¶22

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)

¶23

Signed By : SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 19 th of November 2024 02:15:14 PM

Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahibulla Sardar @ Mintu v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Rasel and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Meghnath Mirdha Vs State of West Bengal

Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman Vs the State of West Bengal

Md. Hasrat Hussain @ Hossain Vs the State of West Bengal

Asish Kumar Rajbhar Vs the State of West Bengal

Debobrato Pati Vs the State of West Bengal