UTTARPARA P.S. CASE No. 159 of 2020 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 394, 395, 397, 412
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Judgment
In the matter of : Sri Sanjiv Paswan @ Sanju. … Petitioner. Mr. S. Chatterjee, Mr. S. S. Ray. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Sandip Chakraborty. ...for the State. Petitioner is in custody for 841 days. He submits there is discrepancy with regard to the stolen booty. He prays for bail. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner was identified in the course of T. I. Parade. Stolen property was also recovered from the petitioner and other co-accuseds. Alleged discrepancy with regard to the quantum of stolen cash may be assessed during trial. Trial is in progress. In view of the aforesaid incriminating materials and gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 2 Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date preferably within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Ajay Kumar Gupta,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, 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.