The High Court rejected an application for pre-arrest bail filed by Manab Roy, accused under Sections 376D/313/323/506 IPC, positing that the gravity of allegations and inclusion in the complaint statement negated the requirement for bail.
Application for pre-arrest bail rejected; petitioner remains in custody.
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.
18.01.2021 SL No.36 Sh
CRM 20 of 2021 (Through Video Conference)
Manab Roy. . . . Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal … Respondent.
Mr. Debajit Kundu.
.. . Advocate for the petitioner present in Court. M/s Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld APP, Sagnik Sankar Sikdar.. ... Advocate for the State.
This is an application for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused in NJP Police Station Case No.992/2019 dated 13-08-2020, registered under Sections 376D/313/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner who has even been named in the FIR by the complainant and also in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we do not find any case is made out by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the application for pre-arrest bail is rejected.
(Rajesh Bindal, J.)
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of sexual offence.
Whether the seriousness of allegations and naming in FIR precludes bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manab Roy
The State of West Bengal
Rajesh Bindal
Saugata Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
