No. 162 of 2022 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120B, 201, 302, 307, 326
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 27
- Explosive Substance Act, 1908 ss. 3, 4
Judgment
Mr. Soumik Ganguli Ms. Priti Barman Ms. Sonali Das Ms. S. Saha .....for the Petitioner ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for three years five months and there has been no progress in the case, as such he may be released on bail. On the other hand learned advocate for the State submits that the last witness being the investigating officer of the case is being examined. Considering the advance stage of the case, I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner at this stage. Learned trial Court is directed to pronounce the verdict latest within a period of six months from the next date fixed. Accordingly, CRM (M) 656 of 2026 is dismissed. 2 All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.