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 4, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sukur Halsana @ Shukur Halsana vs Unknown on 11 October, 2023

11.10.2023                         C.R.M. (A) 4093 of 2023
   SL. 23
Court No. 29
  Sourav
               In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
 (Rejected)    the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Thanarpara
               Police Station Case No. 223 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022 under
               Sections 302/34 IPC.

                                              And

               In the matter of: Sukur Halsana @ Shukur Halsana
                                                                     ....petitioner.

                  Mr. Ashok Das
                  Mr. Amanul Islam
                  Mr. Sourav Mukherjee
                                                             ...for the petitioner.

                  Mr. Swapan Banerjee
                  Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee
                                                                   ...for the State.


               1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the State that the petitioner is a contract killer and another murder case is also pending against him. The aforesaid facts came to be known in course of investigation from the statements of the witnesses as submitted by learned Counsel for the State.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the daughter of principal accused had got married with the son of the deceased and owing to enmity between them the murder was committed by the principal accused in which the present petitioner has no role.

4. Regard, however, being had to the statements of the witnesses connecting the present petitioner in the transaction, existence of record of past criminal antecedent of serious nature against him and gravity of offence, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the 2 petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

6. The application being CRM (A) 4093 of 2023 is dismissed.

(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) 3