The single-judge bench rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed by Ananta Majhi, holding that given the prima facie evidence of assault causing grievous injury and subsequent hospitalization, the case was not fit for such relief.
PRAYER FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS REJECTED.
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.
10.09.2020 tkm sl no. 21
C.R.M. 5319 of 2020
(via video conference)
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Mathabhanga P.S case no. 328 of 2019 dated 11.8.2019 under sections 354/323/326/307/34 of the IPC And
In Re : Ananta Majhi …… petitioner
Mr. H Saha Poddar
…… for the petitioners
Mr. Prasun Datta Mr. S Deb Roy
…… for the State
Having considered materials on record disclosing prima facie involvement of the petitioners in assaulting the victim on head causing grievous injury and hospitalization, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in assault causing grievous injury and hospitalization.
Whether the present case qualifies as a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ananta Majhi
The State
Suvra Ghosh
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
