← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (DB)/388/2024rejected

Dhrubaraj Murmu @ Dhubaraj Murmu v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2024-02-07Hon'Ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi,Hon'Ble Justice Gaurang Kanth2 pages

07.02.2024 tkm/ct 28 C.R.M. (DB) 388 of 2024 sl no. 44 In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2021 dated 10.2.2021 under sections 448/323/324/354/326A IPC And In Re : Dhrubaraj Murmu @Dhubaraj Murmu ........ petitioner Mr. U S Chattopadhyay Mr. S S Chatterjee Ms. R Tah Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. ADatta ...... for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Roy, ld PP Ms. Sreyashee Biswas ...... for the State Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. O F Gazi Ms. Indrani Roy Mr. D Das ...... for the de facto complainant

1. Petitioner is in custody for 218 days. He contends FSL report does not show presence of acid in the glass bottle recovered during investigation. This improbabilises the prosecution case of acid attack. It is also argued vulnerable witnesses have been examined and presently the court is lying vacant. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

2. Learned lawyer for the State opposes the bail prayer. She contends three witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution.

3. Learned lawyer for the de facto complainant also opposes the bail prayer. He contends bail prayer of the petitioner was cancelled by this court which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. We have considered the materials on record. Four witnesses have been examined in full by the prosecution. Victim has been examined in part and her cross examination for reasons best known to the defence was adjourned. During her deposition victim stated acid was thrown on her body. Medical papers produced before us disclose of acid burns on the victim. In this background non-detection of acid in the glass bottle recovered during investigation is of little consequence.

5. During trial petitioner has sought adjournments for cross examination of the victim and other witnesses. This has contributed to the delay.

6. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to bail at present.

7. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)