Indian Penal Code vs In Re:- Ijarul Mallick on 1 September, 2017

1

22 1.9.2017

C.R.M. No.8247 of 2017
p.d.

Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 21.8.2017 in connection with
Mekhliganj Police Station Case No.252/2016 dated 2.9.2016 under Sections 498A/370/370A(2) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– And –

In re:- Ijarul Mallick …. Petitioner.

Mr. Abdur Rakib … For the petitioner.

Mr. Pradipta Ganguly,
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta …. For the State.

Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.

Perused the case diary.

The petitioner is in custody for 364 days. Investigation is over

and charge sheet has already been submitted. Charge has also been

framed and the trial is in progress.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the petitioner that custodial detention of the petitioner is not required

after submission of the charge sheet.

Our attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate for the

State towards the statement made by the victim lady as also the

statement of one of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence both recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which are pages 21 to 24 of the case diary

and pages 35 and 36 thereof respectively. It is also submitted by him

that out of nine prosecution witnesses, the examination of eight

witnesses has already been completed and September 12, 2017 is the
2

next date fixed for recording the statement of the remaining prosecution

witness.

On perusal of the materials in the case diary as also after

considering the fact that out of nine prosecution witnesses, the

examination of eight witnesses has already been completed, we are not

inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.

(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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