The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, relying on statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and medical evidence which did not support the claim of false implication despite the complainant's no-objection statement.
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.
09.7.2024 SL No.28 Ct No. 29 SB
CRM (A) 2241 of 2024
Ranjan Majumder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Chinmoy Pal Mr. Archan Dutta Ms. Aditi Bhattacharyya Mr. Arunabha Dutta Ms. Sayantani Roy … for the petitioner. Ms. Subhasree Patel Mr. Arup Sarkar … for the State Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly … for the de facto complainant
(Uday Kumar, J.)
(Soumen Sen, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged false implication in a consensual relationship?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjan Majumder
The State of West Bengal
Anr.
Uday Kumar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
