Dismissed¶6

MD Rahamuddulla @ Rahamatulla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Mar 2025CRM (DB)/118/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 439(2) CrPC; cancellation of bail; State of West Bengal as applicant; Additional Sessions Judge; bail granted 13.12.2022; application filed 13.07.2023 after about six months; no post-bail misconduct; trial in progress; case diary forensic report matching firearm to bullet injury; Section 164 CrPC eye-witness statements; criminal antecedents; bail not cancelled; dismissed without costs; CRM (DB) 118 of 2023 dismissed for default for non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

The application for cancellation of bail was filed about six months after the grant of bail, did not allege any post-bail misconduct, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had proceeded on the basis that the trial evidence so far recorded was not advantageous to the prosecution. ¶4

MD Rahamuddulla @ Rahamatulla Vs State of West Bengal and… — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

12.03.2025

¶2

DL-66 wt67

¶3

CRM (DB) 2852 of 2023

¶4

Court No.26

¶5

(AD)

¶6

In re: An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶7

-And-

¶8

In the matter of : The State of West Bengal

¶9

… …Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP

¶11

Mr. Dipankar Paramanick, Advocate

¶12

… for the State.

¶13

With

¶14

CRM (DB) 118 of 2023

¶15

In re: An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶16

-And-

¶17

In the matter of : Md. Rahamuddulla @ Rahamatulla … …Petitioner

¶18

In Re.: CRM (DB) 2852 of 2023

¶19

This application is at the behest of the State.

¶20

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that,

¶21

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not take into consideration material evidence available in the case diary which contained the forensic report establishing that the firearm seized from the possession of the opposite parties matched the bullet injury suffered by the victim. He submits that, statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not taken into account by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so also the criminal antecedents of the opposite parties.

¶22

¶23

None appears for the private opposite parties despite service.

¶24

We find from the records that, the bail to the private opposite parties was granted on December 13, 2022. Trial is in progress. The application for cancellation of bail was made on July 13, 2023 after a period of about six months. Application for cancellation of bail does not speak of any post-bail misconduct. Learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so far examined at the trial was not advantageous to the case of the prosecution.

¶25