In an application under Section 439 CrPC for bail, the High Court rejected the application as not satisfied regarding the case merits after reviewing the evidence.
Bail application rejected; applicant detained 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.
Bail Appln. No.45/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI
Present:
For the applicant : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate. Mr. D. R. Choudhury, Advocate, For the respondent : Mr. S. Sarkar, P.P.
04.09.2017.
Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
This is an application under Section 439 Cr. P. C for granting bail to the accused namely, Satyaranjan Debbarma, who has been detained in custody since 01.08.2017 in connection with Bodhjungnagar Police Station Case No.32/2017 under Section 148/149/353/153(A)/153(B)/ 332/436/427/188/120(B) IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
On going through the evidence in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses examined by the investigating agency, I am not satisfied that this is a case for bail at this stage.
Resultantly, the bail application is rejected.
The application stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
d.dey
Bail Appln. No.45/2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused detained under multiple sections of IPC and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyaranjan Debbarma
State
T. Vaiphei
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
