An Application For Cancellation … vs In Re.: Emamul Haque Mallick on 12 July, 2017

1

49.
12.07.2017

.

ap C.R.M. 3017 of 2016
In the matter of: an application for cancellation of bail under Section
439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.04.2016 in
connection with Deganga Police Station Case No. 968 of 2015 dated
26.10.2015 under Sections 302/304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

And
In re.: Emamul Haque Mallick. …… Petitioner

Mr. Kazi Safiullah. … for the petitioner

The de facto complainant of the case has approached this

Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused/opposite

party no.1 by the Court below on the ground that the order itself was

bad in law.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner. Perused the materials on record.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

FIR of this case was registered on October 26, 2015. Thereafter a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court on November 23, 2015 rejected the

prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused/opposite party no.1. Then

he came to be arrested on December 6, 2015 and he was granted bail

by the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas on April 1, 2016

although a few days before, his prayer for bail was rejected by the

selfsame Court on merit. It is vehemently contended that the order

impugned is totally illegal and against the materials on record.
2

Since the cancellation of bail has been sought for on the

ground of order granting bail is not in accordance with law, we first

carefully perused that order.

We find that the petitioner was granted bail five months after

his arrest and the Court granted bail to him after perusal of the case

diary and taking into account that investigation is over and charge-

sheet has been submitted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on our query points out

that already charge has been framed and the matter is awaiting for

trial but because the Court is lying vacant, no trial has been

commenced.

Now, having gone through the order impugned, we do not find

any fault therein, which may justify us to interfere with an order of

granting bail more than one year after.

Accordingly, this application for cancellation of bail stands

rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)
3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *