CRM(M)/165/2025 of PARTHA PROTIM CHOUDHURY @ PARTHA PRATIM CHOWDHURY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Calcutta High Court Grants Bail to Man Arrested for Missing One Court Date in 2010 Murder Case

Calcutta High Court Grants Bail to Man Arrested for Missing One Court Date in 2010 Murder Case

What Happened

On July 10, 2025, the Calcutta High Court’s Jalpaiguri Bench decided a bail plea in a 2010 criminal case. The petitioner, Partha Protim Choudhury, asked for bail after he was arrested for failing to appear once at his ongoing trial. The State opposed his release, citing the long delay in the trial.

Background

Mr. Choudhury faced serious charges under India’s Penal Code, including cruelty to a wife (Section 498A), culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304), and murder (Section 302). He was first released on bail in September 2010 and consistently appeared in court—until May 8, 2025. On that single day, he missed his hearing and a warrant was issued. He was arrested soon after and spent 49 days in custody.

What the Court Said

Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi noted there was “no complaint on record” against Mr. Choudhury for abusing his bail since 2010. The judge found that a single missed date did not justify continued detention, especially after 49 days in jail. The court granted bail on conditions:

  • A bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the same amount (one local).
  • Mr. Choudhury must attend every hearing.
  • He must not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

“If the petitioner fails to comply,” the judge warned, “the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail without further reference.”

Key Takeaways

  1. Courts balance the right to liberty against the need to secure a fair trial. One missed court date, by itself, does not always block bail—even in a 15-year-old murder case.
  2. Defendants who consistently follow court orders build goodwill that can help secure bail if they slip up once.
  3. The decision underscores that long delays in trial do not automatically strip an accused of bail rights.
  4. For the public, this ruling shows that courts may be flexible if an accused has a good track record and the lapse is minor.
  5. Trial courts should monitor bail conditions closely. Failing to meet them can lead to immediate cancellation of bail.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *