rkd Ct. No.40 C.R.R. 2850 of 1998
(CRAN 1410 of 2019)
In the matter of: – Samir Ghosh
Mr. J. N. Chatterjee,
Mr. A. Bose
…for the petitioner.
Mr. R. Mukherjee, A.P.P.,
Ms. D. Sahu
…for the State.
Petitioner has prayed for bail.
It appears that the petitioner was convicted in Sessions
Trial No.238 of 1992 for commission of offences under Sections
498A/Section304B of the Indian Penal Code. The order of conviction and
sentence was affirmed on 26th November, 1998 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Criminal
Appeal no.56 of 1995.
The convict/petitioner approached before this Court by
filing application under Sections 401/Section482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which was registered as CRR 2850 of 1998.
The convict/petitioner was enlarged on bail till the disposal of
aforesaid revisional application. On 18th April, 2016 the said
revisional application was dismissed for default. On 15th
September, 2016 trial court issued warrant of arrest against the
convict/petitioner. on 30th August, 2018 the convict/petitioner
was brought under arrest and he has been sent to jail to serve
out the sentence. In the meantime the revisional application as
preferred by the convict/petitioner has been restored to its file
Learned counsel appearing for the convict/petitioner
moves the application for bail of the convict on the ground that
he is aged about 80 years and he is in jail custody for more than
300 days. He has prayed for release on bail on any condition.
According to the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the convict/petitioner that due to the fault on the
part of the administration LCR was not brought from the trial
court and as such the revisional application was not heard in
Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that for
proper appreciation of the bail of the convict, the perusal of the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses is necessary. He has
opposed the prayer for bail of the convict/petitioner. There was
concurrent views of two different courts regarding the guilt of the
However, considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the State, I think the main application
requires to be disposed of as early as possible.
Let the main application appear in the list on 1st July,
2019 as “Contested Application”(specially fixed).
The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of the special
messenger within two days so that the LCR may be brought from
the trial court and be placed before this Court on the date of
Department is directed to take immediate steps for
bringing the LCR as soon as the cost of special messenger is
deposited by the convict/petitioner.
At this stage, I do not like to pass any separate order
regarding the prayer for bail. The matter will be considered on 1st
(Madhumati Mitra, J.)