Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
Hence, application for bail is rejected
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 304B, 498A
Judgment
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya Ms. A Sultana Mr. S Bardhan Mr. Saryati Datta …… for the petitioner …… for the State Petitioner is in custody for more than four years. He submits there is delay in trial. He renews his prayer for bail. Learned lawyer for the State opposes the bail prayer. He submits trial is in progress. 10 witnesses have already been examined. We have considered the materials on record. Victim- housewife was murdered at her matrimonial home. Petitioner is the husband of the housewife. Trial has substantially progressed. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, application for bail is rejected. Trial court is directed to conduct the trial with utmost expedition and conclude the same at an early date preferably within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Parties shall communicate the order to the trial court for necessary compliance. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, application for bail is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 302, 304B, 498A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.