Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application for first applicant and allowed second applicant to remain on existing bail bond since custodial interrogation was not required.
Pre-arrest bail denied to applicant No.1; applicant No.2 allowed to remain on previous bail bond.
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.
A.B No. 39/2017
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI
Present: For the applicant : Mr. P. Sahu, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. S. Sarkar, P. P.
03.05.2017.
Heard Mr. P. Sahu, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
This is an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C for granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants namely, Sri Alok Das Gupta and Sri Jyoti Bikash Dev, who have been implicated in connection with Kamalpur Police Station Case No. 27 of 2017 U/s 379 IPC.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not wish to press this application in so far as the applicant No.1 i.e. Sri Alok Das is concerned.
In view of this, no pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicant No.1.
In so far as applicant No.2 i.e. Sri Jyoti Bikash Dev is concerned, after perusal of the case diary produced by the learned Pubic Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that this is not a case for custodial interrogation.
Resultantly, the applicant No.2, Sri Jyoti Bikash Dev is allowed to remain on his previous bail bond executed by him with the arresting authority.
Application stands disposed of.
d.dey.
A.B No. 34/2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to applicants charged under Section 379 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Alok Das Gupta
Sri Jyoti Bikash Dev
State
T. VAIPHEI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
