A petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail order was dismissed. The Court found no reason to interfere as the lower court determined no prima facie case required custodial interrogation.
Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed; no interference with the impugned order.
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.
09.02.2023
46 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK
C.R.M. (DB) 264 of 2023
In Re : Sarbani Laha
...… petitioner
Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Ms. Rima Banerjee … for the petitioner Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee Mr. Tirtharaj Ghosal … for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 Mr. P. K. Dutta Mr. Santanu Deb Roy … for the State
Petitioner seeks cancellation of an order granting anticipatory bail dated November 9, 2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1899 of 2022.
By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge considered the materials in the case diary including the impugned Deed. The learned Judge found no prima facie case requiring custodial interrogation of the private opposite parties and, therefore, proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner herein that private opposite parties are trying to mislead the municipal authorities and other authorities into believing that private
2
opposite parties are the owners in respect of plot no. 7809, 7810 and 9710 also.
Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite parties submits on instruction that, the private opposite parties are claiming title in respect of plot no. 7809 only. The Deed of Gift of the mother was executed in favour of her son.
The submission on behalf of the private opposite parties that the Deed of Gift in question is limited to plot no. 7809 is placed on record.
In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
CRM (DB) 264 of 2023 is disposed of accordingly.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of anticipatory bail granted to private opposite parties on the ground that they may be misleading authorities regarding property ownership.
Sarbani Laha
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
