The Court considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by Bapi Dey Sarkar. Citing statements implicating the petitioner and a mobile phone not being recovered, the Court refused relief and rejected the application.
Anticipatory bail application rejected; no bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
08.10.2020 SL No.12 Court No.10 (sd)
CRM 5292 of 2020
(Through Video Conference)
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
And
In the matter of: Bapi Dey Sarkar @ Abhik Dey
….Petitioner.
Mr. H. Saha Poddar
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee
Mr. G.K. Das
Mr. K. Chatterjee ..For the defacto complainant.
Considering the statement of the manager of the Hotel under section 161 Cr.P.C and the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C implicating the petitioner to the commission of alleged offence, and having regard to the fact the mobile phone has not yet been recovered, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Under such circumstances, application for anticipatory bail being CRM 5292 of 2020 is rejected.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Soumen Sen, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the evidence implicating him and unrecovered mobile phone.
Whether the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this petition permitted under the law.
Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Bapi Dey Sarkar @ Abhik Dey
defacto complainant
Saugata Bhattacharyya
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
