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 13, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Girish Dolui & Anr vs Unknown on 12 July, 2011

Author: Ashim Kumar Roy

Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy

21   12.07.2011                          C.R.M. 5489 of 2011
Sd
                  Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
                  Criminal Procedure filed on 27th June, 2011 in connection with
                  Khanakul P.S. Case No. 57 dated 03.06.10 under Section 147/
                  148/ 149/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 427/ 436/ 302 of the Indian Penal
                  Code and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9B(2)
                  of the Explosives Act, 1884.

                                              And

                      In the matter of : Girish Dolui & Anr.
                                                         .... Petitioners (in Jail).

                           Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty.
                                          ....For the Petitioner.

                           Mr. Satarup Purakayastha.
                                           ....For the State.


                           Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
                      learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the
                      case diary.

                           The petitioners are seeking bail in connection with a
                      case relating to offence punishable under Section 147/ 148/
                      149/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 427/ 436/ 302 of the Indian Penal
                      Code and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section
                      9B(2) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

                           Having regards to the nature and seriousness of the
                      allegation and the brutality in the commission of the alleged
                      offence as well as the fact that the witnesses have stated that
                      the petitioners were present and fired from the gun, we are
 not inclined to consider the prayer for bail mainly on the
ground that the licensed fire arm at the relevant time was
deposited in police station due to Parliament Election, as
nothing prevents the person to have another fire arm.
Furthermore, this is a case where similarly situated co-
accused's prayer for bail was rejected by this Court.
Accordingly, we are not inclined to allow the petitioners
prayer for bail and the same is rejected.


     The application for bail accordingly stands rejected.



                                (J. N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE)

(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)