Calcutta High CourtCRM (DB)/548/2022dismissed

Pritam Hati v. State Of West Bengal

2022-02-25Hon'Ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi,Hon'Ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay2 pages

25.02.2022 Serial no.54 Dd CRM (DB) 548 of 2022 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 169 of 2020 dated July 06,2020 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. -AndIn the matter of : Sri Pritam Hati ... ...Petitioner Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Subhadip Chakraborty, Advocates ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed, ld. APP Ms. Trina Mitra, Advocates ... ...For the State Petitioner renews the prayer for bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the first prayer for bail was rejected by this Hon'ble Court. A Special Leave Petition was preferred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed expeditious disposal of the trial within six months. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that although the petitioner was represented, the jurisdictional Court is yet to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was involved in the forgery of documents in the High Court premises itself. The petitioner was offering jobs to the public by taking money from them. He draws the attention of the Court to the orders of the jurisdictional Court including the order dated March 3, 2021 where the jurisdictional Court expressed agony on the conduct of the

accused in taking repeated adjournments and thereby delaying the disposal of the case.

Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein and considering the fact that there is hardly any material change in circumstance subsequent to earlier order of rejection, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

There are orders of the jurisdictional Court including the order dated March 3, 2021 where the jurisdictional Court placed on records the dilatory tactics being adopted on behalf of the accused during the trial. Prosecution cannot be faulted for not having the trial disposed of expeditiously. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (DB) 548 of 2022 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)