SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nikhil Halder vs Unknown on 23 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

23.07.2021 CRM 3109 of 2021
Court No. 28
Item No. PB – 32 In Re: An application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed on 05.04.2021 in connection with Jalangi
Police Station Case No. 129 of 2011 dated 13.02.2011 under
(bail – allowed)
Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code. (G.R. No. 606 of
In the matter of: Nikhil Halder
…… Petitioner
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Sofia Nesar, Advocate
Mr. Santanu Sett, Advocate
……for the Petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Learned P.P.
Ms. Faria Hossain, Advocate
Mr. Aniket Mitra, Advocate
…… for the State

The Advocate-on-record of the petitioner undertakes to affirm
and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within four
weeks from date. Subject to such undertaking the application is
taken up for hearing.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for bail in
connection with Jalangi Police Station Case No. 129 of 2011 dated
13.02.2011 under
Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.

This is an application renewing the prayer for bail for tenth
times after it was rejected lastly on September 10, 2018 vide CRM
7351 of 2008.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been languishing in custody for nearly about 10 years
in connection with a murder trial for causing death of his wife and
there has been no substantial progress of trial in the meantime by
reaching the logical conclusion of the case. It is further submitted
that out of 15 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, 10 witnesses
have already been examined and only three police witnesses are

still left unexamined. According to the learned Advocate for the
petitioner though the two sons of the petitioner were described to
be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and their statements were
recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but
during trial those two sons have resiled from their own statement
rendering the prosecution case to be shrouded with doubt.

Learned advocate for the State raises objection against the
prayer for bail submitting that the trial of this case is at the verge of
completion and only police witnesses are left to be examined and at
this stage, if the petitioner be released on bail, there is fair chance
of abscondence and the trial would be seriously prejudiced.

We are alive of the fact that there have been several
rejections of the bail prayer in the interest of holding trial. The
petitioner is languishing in custody for nearly ten years without any
conclusive trial. Most of the vulnerable witnesses including the sons
of the deceased, who are the most dependable witnesses of the
prosecution have already been examined, and some formal police
witnesses are left unexamined.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and bearing
in mind that most of the vulnerable witnesses have already been
examined together with the progress of trial and long incarceration
of petitioner about 10 years, we are of the considered view that
further detention of the petitioner is not necessary.

As such, the prayer for bail is allowed.

Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall furnish a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two
sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to
the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Murshidabad at Berhampore;

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available on each and every
date so fixed by the trial Court;

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and shall
not intimidate the witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

iv) Failure to attend the Court on a solitary day without any
justifiable reason shall disentitle the petitioner the privilege of
bail and the trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail
without any reference to this Court.

The application being CRM 3109 of 2021 accordingly
disposed of.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) (Shivakant Prasad , J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2023 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