The Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Bench dismissed an application for anticipatory bail for the petitioner. The bench refused bail, citing the availability of an injury report and allegations of complicity in the offence of assault and wrongful restraint.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and the application is disposed of.
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.
17.12.2021 SL No.21 Court No.1 (gc)
Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court At Jalpaiguri
CRM 1141 of 2021 (Via video Conference)
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Matigara Police Station Case No.230 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 under Sections 341/354/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of : Raju Mandal
Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, … For the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Sarkar, Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee, … For the State
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
The learned Counsel for the State, however, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and has referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as also some of the independent witnesses.
Special mention was made to the injury report and considering the materials available on record and the nature and extent of complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and also having regard to the injury report available on record, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.
2
The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM No.1141 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Biswajit Basu, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the injury report and alleged complicity in the commission of the offence.
Whether the evidence gathered under Section 161 CrPC and witness statements justify refusal of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Raju Mandal
The State
Biswajit Basu
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
