✦ Calcutta High Court

RAGHUNATHGANJ P.S. CASE No. 569 of 2024 · Calcutta High Court

RAGHUNATHGANJ P.S. CASE No. 569 of 2024DINESH KUMAR SHARMA2 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

... petitioner Mr. Rajedeep Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anindya Bose, Ms. Arushi RAthore, Mr. Santanu Maji, Mr. Soumya Raha, Mr. Aritra Sinha. …..for the Petitioner. Mr. Arindam Sen, Md. Kutubuddin. ……for the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the last date order his name has wrongly been mentioned as “Mr. Anirban Sen” instead of “Arindam Sen”. Let the correction has been carried out. Learned counsel for the State has filed the report of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangipur Police District. Let it be taken on record. Learned counsel submits that vide notification dated 23rd September, 1996 all officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police, under West Bengal Police and Calcutta Police Authority were appointed as Special Police Officer in the respective local jurisdiction for dealing with offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956. Learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he is the owner of a hotel Ahar where allegedly upon a raid being conducted a woman of 31 years of age and four persons were found. During investigation it surfaced that hotel is being used for prostitution. The charge sheet has already been filed. Learned senior counsel has submitted that at no point of time any notice was served upon the petitioner. Thus, taking into the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions that he shall join and cooperate in the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and at any point of time shall not threaten, tamper or intimidate the complainant or members of the family in any manner. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. RAGHUNATHGANJ P.S. CASE No. 569 of 2024). ← Search more judgments