Disposed¶20

Tapan Das v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Cancellation of bail – Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Calcutta HC3 May 2024CRM (SB)/29/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC — refusal to interfere after delay of over five and a half years since bail granted on 14.08.2018 — earlier cancellation application rejected by ACJM, Contai — investigation complete, charge framed 25.06.2019, trial commenced, next date 03.07.2024 — direction to trial court for at least one hearing every 60 days — trial to proceed despite local bar resolution — CRM (SB) 29 of 2024, decided 03.05.2024, Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for cancellation of bail not entertained; CRM (SB) 29 of 2024 disposed of with directions to the trial court to fix at least one date every 60 days and to ensure the trial continues notwithstanding any resolution of the local bar. ¶20

Tapan Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

D/L24 C.R.M. (SB)29 of 2024 03.05.2024 Bpg. In Re: An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

¶2

Sri Tapan Das Versus

¶3

The State of West Bengal and another

¶4

Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee

¶5

Ms. Rimpa Adhikari Ms. Kakan Das.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Antarikhya Basu.

...for the State.

Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta

Mr. Sayan Uddin. ...for the opposite party no.2.

¶11

Report submitted by the learned advocate for the State be

¶12

kept with the record.

¶13

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for cancellation of bail of the opposite party no.2.

¶14

Learned advocate for the opposite party no.2 draws the attention of the Court to the order of bail, which was passed on 14^th August, 2018. More than 6 years have passed since the bail was granted to the opposite party no.2. There was an earlier application for cancellation of bail made by the present petitioner before the learned ACJM, Contai. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said order, petitioner approached this Court.

¶15

Having regard to the fact that more than 5½ years have passed since the order of bail was passed, I am not inclined to

¶16

¶17

interfere at this stage.

¶18

It has also been informed that the investigation of the case has been completed and the trial has commenced as charge was framed on 25^th June, 2019. The next date has been fixed on 3^rd July, 2024 for evidence.

¶19

I direct the learned ACJM, Contai/the learned trial court in seisin of the matter to fix at least one date in every 60 days for the purposes of the present case so that the trial of the case can be taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of time. I further direct that the trial of the case would continue in spite of the resolution of the local bar and the participating advocate will not stall the trial of the case because of such resolution.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, CRM (SB) 29 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶21

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶22

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶23

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Tapan Das v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Das v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

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

Pawan Chettri@Paul Chettri and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mamata Parida and Others Vs Manoj Kumar Parida

Arindam Palit Vs State of West Bengal

Aryama Chakraborty (Rakshit) Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Resma Bibi @ Reshma Bibi and Another Vs State of West Bengal

Tanmoy Biswas and Others Vs Prosenjeet Nath and Another