DHANIAKHALI P.S. CASE No. 104 of 2022 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 409, 427, 436
Judgment
Mr. Sajal Pandit, Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Mr. Sabyasachi Hazra. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, ld. A.P.P., Ms. Debjani Dasgupta. …for the State. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Petitioner is the Manager of the Co-operative Society. It is submitted he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. We have considered the materials on record. Statements of witnesses show petitioner was responsible in setting the office of the co-operative society on fire to destroy records. In view of the pivotal role of the petitioner in the crime, we are not inclined to grant bail to him. 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 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.