AMIT TALUKDAR, SANKAR PRASAD MITRA
JOYDEB PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
( 1 ) AN otherwise innocuous application under section 439 of the Code of criminal Procedure (for short 'the said Code') which under ordinary circumstances could have been disposed of in the usual fashion, however, has hit the Hornet's nest and a situation has so bubbled up that not only the management of G. R. Case No. 159 of 2005 before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Haldia suffers a jinxed deliberation but the same has a wider ramification which has to be addressed by the Court, keeping in mind the issue which has cropped up and covers several such situations that take place daily in the various Magistracies. Background:
( 2 ) A Division Bench of this Court in C. R. M. No. 3000 of 2005 on April 13, 2005 allowed the prayer of the petitioners in terms of section 438 of the said code who apprehended arrest in connection with Nandigram Police Station case No. 33/05 under sections 341, 448, 323, 325, 354, 308, 506 and 34. It was directed that the said order under section 438 of the said Code would remain operative for a period of two (2) weeks. Cause of Action:
( 3 ) EMBOLDENED with the said order in connection with C.
REFERRED TO : Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan and Anr.
Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.
Niranjan Singh and Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors.
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs. State ofM.P. and Anr.
Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar
State of U.P. and Anr. vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.