✦ Calcutta High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Raja Mukherjee ... for the petitioner Mr. Neguive Ahmed, APP Ms. Amita Gaur … for the State Heard the learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner is in custody for more than five years. He has been falsely implicated. He prays for bail. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the bail prayer was rejected earlier by this court on merits. Trial is in progress. Victim has supported the prosecution case. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner and co-accused had kidnapped the victim and demanded ransom. Victim has been examined and the prosecution case is in progress. 2 In view of the aforesaid incriminating circumstances and gravity of offence, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

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. NARKELDANGA POLICE STATION CASE No. 251 of 2017). ← Search more judgments