SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

In Re:- Md. Kalamuddin Ansari & Ors vs Re: An Application For Bail Under … on 10 July, 2017


51 10.7.2017

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

at once.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation