Single-bench order rejecting an application for anticipatory bail. The Court held that the petitioner's involvement in a possible internet fraud racket could not be ruled out, thus refusing the relief sought under Section 438 CrPC.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC 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.
04.04.2022
Sl. 01 Court No.29 suvayan (Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 135 of 2022 (Via Video Conference)
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jalpaiguri Cyber P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 dated 24/02/2021 under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal, 1973.
And
In the matter of: Sanjay Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Kunal Jit Bhattacharya Mr. Moniruzamman Mr. Ujjal Luksom Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee
… for the petitioner.
…for the State.
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner returned the money coming into his bank account through an internet transaction.
Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary.
The involvement of the petitioner in a racket to defraud members of the public in the internet cannot be ruled out at this stage. Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 135 of 2022, is rejected.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving a potential internet fraud racket.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Ghosh
The State
Debangsu Basak
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
