✦ Calcutta High Court

Judgment · High Court

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Prabir Majumder. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Tanmoy Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Arindam Sen. …for the State. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner renews his prayer for bail. He submits there is no legally admissible evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. We have considered the materials on record. Victim is a deaf and dumb girl. Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure show that the victim had implicated the petitioner through sign language. In view of the aforesaid incriminating materials and as his bail prayer was rejected in April, 2022 and there is no significant change in circumstances since then, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 2 Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

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. RANAGHAT P.S. CASE No. 54 of 2022). ← Search more judgments