No. 19 of 2016 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 325, 326, 379
Judgment
Mr. Arkaprabho Roy, Mr. Rhiddhiman Mukherjee Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Mr. Subroto Roy …for the petitioners. …for the State.
Petitioner no.1 is in custody for 778 days. Petitioner no.2 is in custody for 673 days. They contend there is slow progress in trial. They renew their bail prayer.
Learned advocate for the State submits trial has substantially progressed. Examination of the last witness is fixed in November,
We have considered the materials on record. Allegations are vague and offences if proved would attract mandatory life imprisonment. Trial has substantially progressed and date has been fixed for examination of the last prosecution witness.
Under such circumstances and in view of gravity of offence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
The application for bail is, thus, rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, 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.