Mechail Ali @ Dilu v. The State Of West Bengal

14.02.2025 Item No.41 Court No. 26 CHC Rejected CRM (DB) 3740 of 2024 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in connection with Duttapukur Police Station Case No. 359 of 2018 dated 30.04.2018 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

-AndIn the matter of : Mechail Ali @ Dilu ... ...Petitioner Md. Yunush Mandal, Advocate Mr. Pronojit Roy, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Suman De, Advocate Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri, Advocate ... ...For the State

1. Petitioner prays for bail.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the wife of the petitioner died due to road traffic accident. He refers to the evidence of the Doctor who was examined by the prosecution at the trial. Moreover, he submits that, petitioner is in custody for about seven years.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, trial is in progress. Prosecution intends to examine nine witnesses, out of which four were examined. He submits that, there is an eyewitness who is yet to be examined who stated that the petitioner threw his wife before a running truck. He also refers to the Post Mortem Report of the victim. Signed By :

CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY High Court of Calcutta 17 th of February 2025 02:22:04 PM

4. Post Mortem Report of the victim states that, the victim died out of the injuries noted on the body of the victim, ante mortem in nature.

5. Doctor conducting the Post Mortem examination at the trial in a suggestion stated that, the injuries can be caused by a road traffic accident.

6. Eyewitness who saw the petitioner threw his wife in front of the truck when the so-called accident occurred is yet to be examined at the trial.

7. As noted above, four of the nine prosecution witnesses were examined at the trial.

8. We request the learned trial Judge to expedite the trial. In doing so, learned trial Judge is requested not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

9. The nature of the incident as appearing from the materials on record as also the complicity of the petitioner in the crime, the gravity of the offence, and the fact that the trial is in progress do not suggest desirability of granting bail to the petitioner.

10. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

11. CRM(DB) 3740 of 2024 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) Signed By :

CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY High Court of Calcutta 17 th of February 2025 02:22:04 PM