Calcutta Court Grants Bail to Man Who Missed One Hearing in 2010 Homicide Case

What Happened

Court: High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), decision dated July 10, 2025.

Petitioner: Partha Protim Choudhury, charged in a 2010 case for dowry cruelty (IPC 498A) and homicide (IPC 302/304).

State: represented by government lawyers.

Request: Choudhury sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after missing one court date and being held for 49 days.

Background

In June 2010, Kumargram police charged Choudhury in a case that also involved the death of a person. He was released on bail the same year, promising to attend every hearing.

Over 15 years, the trial barely moved forward. On May 8, 2025, Choudhury missed a single appearance. The trial judge then issued a warrant for his arrest.

He was picked up on that warrant and has been in custody since. Before this, there was no record of bail misuse.

Bail is a temporary release from jail on a signed promise (or bond) and conditions set by the court. A warrant of arrest is a court order to detain someone who failed to appear in court.

What the Court Said

Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi noted that Choudhury had complied with every court date for 15 years. The lone missed hearing did not show a pattern of defiance.

The judge observed, “He has sufficiently suffered for his non-appearance on such date,” referring to the 49 days in custody.

The court ordered bail on these conditions:

• A bond of ₹10,000 and two sureties of ₹10,000 each, one being a local resident.
• Mandatory attendance at every trial hearing.
• No intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence.

If Choudhury breaks these rules without a valid excuse, the trial court can cancel his bail at once.

Key Takeaways

One missed court date won’t automatically block bail if the person had a long history of cooperation.

This ruling respects the right to a timely trial and personal liberty under the new citizen safety law (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

It underlines the importance of attending every hearing—or formally seeking leave—because even one default triggers an arrest warrant.

For the justice system, the case highlights how slow trials can affect defendants and strain public trust.

This decision doesn’t change the law but reinforces that accused individuals can be re-bailed when they show good conduct over many years.

Trial judges and higher courts may look to this example when handling bail applications in long-pending criminal cases.