pd. C.R.M. No. 6401 of 2017
In re:- Md. Kalamuddin Ansari Ors. … Petitioners.
Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 29.6.2017 in connection
with Jagaddal P.S. Case No.874/2015 dated 22.9.2015 under Sections 498A/326/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Mr. Koustav Bagchi … For the petitioners.
Ms. Zareen N.Khan,
Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg …. For the State.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioners are in custody for 657 days.
However, the trial has commenced and out of eleven witnesses,
the examination of two witnesses is complete.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends
that the said two witnesses were not fully examined and for about two
years, the progress of the trial was quite slow.
In response to that, the learned Counsel for the State submits
that the said witnesses could not be examined in full because the
petitioners’ prayer under Section 232 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. She
further submits that it is the defence, who are responsible for causing
the delay by taking time day after day. She also submits that this case
is based on the dying declaration of the victim recorded in presence of
the attending Doctor. In this regard, she draws our attention to the
said dying declaration, which is at page-10 of the case diary.
Now, going through the same and considering what transpires
therefrom and the other materials collected during investigation, we
are not inclined to allow the petitioners’ prayer for bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial
strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. and shall not
grant any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties unless
the court finds that the same is necessary for the ends of justice.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)