Dismissed

Kamal Ganguly@Kamal Babu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC17 Feb 2023CRM (A)/682/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Kamal Ganguly. The court noted the petitioner's history of absconding and the existence of recorded statements and medical evidence implicate him in assault and sexual assault under the relevant IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC rejected and CRM (A) 682 of 2023 dismissed.

Kamal Ganguly@Kamal Babu Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

17.02.2023 Serial no. 05 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (A) 682 of 2023

¶3

In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Jagacha Police Station Case No. 257 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021 under Sections 448/323/325/376D/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

-And-

¶5

In the matter of : Kamal Ganguly @ Kamal Babu

¶6

… …Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri, Advocate … … For the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury,

¶9

Mr. Mainak Gupta, Advocates … …For the State

¶10

The police case is dated September 17, 2021.

¶11

The warrant of arrest was issued as against the petitioner. Petitioner filed a revisional application where, there is a stay of execution of the warrant of proclamation and attachment issued as against the petitioner by the order dated September 21, 2022.

¶12

Earlier application for anticipatory bail was withdrawn at the behest of the petitioner with a liberty to file afresh on November 14, 2022.

¶13

There is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the de facto complainant implicating four persons in assault, penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault.

¶14

Medical examination report of the de facto complainant corroborates at least assault.

¶15

¶16

Therefore, an incident took place and whether the extent of the incident as claimed by the de facto complainant or not is a matter for investigation.

¶17

There is a history of long absconsion of the petitioner also.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated as, there is a loan transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. In support of such contention, a document is sought to be relied upon.

¶19

The document was not produced before the Investigating Officer.

¶20

Petitioner did not participate in the investigations at all.

¶21

The claim of the de facto complainant is on the contrary that there is a loan which the petitioner took from her deceased husband.

¶22

Therefore, in the conspectus of the materials available in the case diary, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected . CRM (A) 682 of 2023 is dismissed .

¶24

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶25

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

Kamal Ganguly@Kamal Babu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Ganguly@Kamal Babu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Saha Vs State of West Bengal

Firoja Mondal @ Firoja Bibi Vs State of West Bengal

Arun Manna and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Vinod Kr Gupta and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Dilip Nandi Vs State of West Bengal

Asish @ Asidul Mondal Vs Union of India