Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sk. Md. Samir vs Unknown on 10 July, 2024

Author: Arijit Banerjee

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

10.07.2024 Item no. 23.

Court No.28.

AB (Rejected) CRM (DB) 1969 of 2024 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Bauria P.S. Case No.102 of 2023 dated 17.6.23 under Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code And In the matter of : Sk. Md. Samir ......Petitioner.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Ms. Ghazala Firdous, Mr. Mofakkerul Islam, Mr. Sk. Saidullah Mr. Debopam Roy Mr. Mithun Mondal Mr. Md. Arsalan ......for the Petitioner. Mr. Iqbal Kabir Ms. Suruchi Saha ......for the State. The charge is under Sections 489A/489B/489C/489D 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner says that he has no role to play in the alleged incident. He has been falsely implicated. He is in custody for 388 days. Charge is yet to be considered. He prays for bail.

Learned Advocate for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, draws our attention to the relevant material in the case diary. He says that there is sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner. FSL report has been obtained which clearly indicates that the currency notes seized from the accused persons including the petitioner are low quality counterfeit notes. Charge is scheduled to be considered on Signed By :

APURBA BANDYOPADHYAY High Court of Calcutta

11 th of July 2024 04:38:50 PM 2 August 8, 2024. All efforts will be made to conclude the trial expeditiously.

We are told that there are 14 witnesses named in the charge sheet.

Having considered the prima facie incriminating material on record, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner's prayer for bail, at this stage.

The prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. CRM (DB) 1969 of 2024 is dismissed. However, since the petitioner is in custody for more than a year, we direct the learned Trial Court to ensure that charge is considered on August 8, 2024, and if charge is framed, then to take the trial to its conclusion at the earliest and definitely within one year from the date of framing of charge.

The parties shall communicate this order to the learned Trial Court.

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

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) 3