This order dismisses the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding IT Act offences. The court found direct allegations implicating the petitioner as the owner of the lodge where the offence allegedly occurred.
The prayer for anticipatory bail was not allowed; the application was dismissed.
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.
04.10.2021 Item no. 18 Court No.32. S.De (Rejected)
(Via Video Conference)
CRM No. 2405 of 2021
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.03.2021 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No. 340 of 2018 dated 26.06.2018 under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
And
In the matter of : Dulal Chandra Pan.
……Petitioner.
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Advocate, ……for the Petitioner. Ms. Faria Hossain, Advocate, Ms. Baisali Basu, Advocate, ……for the State.
The allegation is under Sections 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
The petitioner says that he has no direct implication in the alleged offence. Charge-sheet has been submitted and his custodial interrogation is not necessary.
We have seen the material in the case diary including the statements of witnesses. The petitioner is the owner of the lodge from where flesh trade was being carried on. There is direct allegation implicating the petitioner in the alleged offence.
On an overall assessment of the material on record and the possible extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged
2
offence, although charge-sheet has been submitted, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, CRM 2405 of 2021 is dismissed.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be allowed given the petitioner's ownership of the lodge involved in the alleged flesh trade.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the petitioner who claims no direct implication.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dulal Chandra Pan
the State
Bivas Pattanayak
Arijit Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
