The Gauhati High Court rejected the second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC. The court held that releasing the accused would hamper the early disposal of the trial and hence dismissed the plea.
Bail application rejected; petitioner must remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010023562022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./284/2022
DILIP BARMAN
S/O. GABINDA BARMAN, VILL. SIMALTOLA, (KARSUABORI), P.O. AND P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
04.04.2022
Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/2
120 B/365/302 of the IPC.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a non-bailable offence under Sections 120 B, 365, 302 IPC pending trial in a Sessions Court.
Whether the bail application of the petitioner is maintainable under Section 439 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh RanjanReferred¶20
(2005) 2 SCC 42 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Barman
The State of Assam
Parthivjyoti Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
