The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by Soumen Mitra and others in connection with a criminal case under various IPC sections and the POCSO Act. The prayer was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and unsubstantiated alibi claims.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; CRM (A) 529 of 2023 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.
13.02.2023 Serial no. 03 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected)
CRM (A) 529 of 2023
In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Special Case no. 145 of 2022 arising out of Duttapukur Police Station Case No. 1110 of 2022 dated 12.11.2022 under Sections 341/323/325/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
-And-
In the matter of : Soumen Mitra @ Suman & Ors.
… …Petitioners
Mr. Souvik Mitter,
Ms. Rajnandini Das, Advocates … … For the Petitioners
Ms. Zareen N. Khan,
Mr. Arup Sarkar, Advocate … …For the State
Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty, Mr. Argha Banerjee, Advocates .. …For the OP no. 2
Report submitted in Court be taken on record.
The application for anticipatory bail is taken up for consideration subsequent to the order dated February 7, 2023.
In paragraphs 3 and 13 of the application for anticipatory bail, there are claims that video footage demonstrates the innocence of the petitioners.
Faced with such contentions, the matter was adjourned on February 7, 2023 for the Investigation Officer to investigate on the lines disclosed by the petitioner.
2
Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the Investigating Officer was able to collect video footage of approximately 2 and ½ minutes.
The incident spanned prior to the 2 and ½ minutes of the video footage and subsequent thereafter also.
The claim for alibi of the petitioner at this stage remains unsubstantiated.
Opposite party no. 2 is represented.
Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected . CRM (A) 529 of 2023 is dismissed .
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners given the lack of substantiated alibi and partial video footage.
Whether the claims of innocence based on video footage are sufficient grounds to grant bail at this stage.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Soumen Mitra @ Suman & Ors.
State
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
