Sanjoy Kumar Das & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3902 of 1999 )
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3902 of 1999 )
Petitioner: Sanjoy Kumar Das & Anr.
Respondent: State of West Bengal
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3902 of 1999 )
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3902 of 1999 )
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 437 – Bail – Accused of young age – Examination of mother of deceased recorded – Her cross examination deferred for a longer date – Accused languishing in jail – No grounds for such a long adjournment. Held that under the circumstances accused be granted bail.
(Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The examination of witnesses was in progress and the mother of the deceased has been examined in-chief. Last time also we though that after the examination of the mother, the appellants could be released on bail during the remaining part of the trial consider-ing the young age of the appellants. But today we are told by the learned standing counsel for the State of West Bengal that the trial court has fixed the next dates to 24th and 25th February, 2000 for cross-examination of the mother whose examination-in-chief was already over. This is in conflict with the principle involved in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, par-ticularly when the accused were languishing in jail. No proper excuse or justification has been placed for posting the case to such a distant date for cross-examination of a witness whose examination-in-chief is over. The Sessions Judge seems to have by-passed the Parliamentary mandate incorporated in Section 309 of the Crl.P.C. It is for the High Court to consider whether the excuses put forward by him are justifiable or not.
3. In view of these circumstances we are not disposed to keep the appellants to continue in jail during the remaining part of the trial. We, therefore, order that they be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Judge on executing a bond each with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. We permit the trial Judge to impose such other conditions as may be necessary for preventing the accused from tampering with the evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The examination of witnesses was in progress and the mother of the deceased has been examined in-chief. Last time also we though that after the examination of the mother, the appellants could be released on bail during the remaining part of the trial consider-ing the young age of the appellants. But today we are told by the learned standing counsel for the State of West Bengal that the trial court has fixed the next dates to 24th and 25th February, 2000 for cross-examination of the mother whose examination-in-chief was already over. This is in conflict with the principle involved in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, par-ticularly when the accused were languishing in jail. No proper excuse or justification has been placed for posting the case to such a distant date for cross-examination of a witness whose examination-in-chief is over. The Sessions Judge seems to have by-passed the Parliamentary mandate incorporated in Section 309 of the Crl.P.C. It is for the High Court to consider whether the excuses put forward by him are justifiable or not.
3. In view of these circumstances we are not disposed to keep the appellants to continue in jail during the remaining part of the trial. We, therefore, order that they be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Judge on executing a bond each with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. We permit the trial Judge to impose such other conditions as may be necessary for preventing the accused from tampering with the evidence or influencing the remaining witnesses.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
