Judgment · High Court · 2024
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 308, 325, 354B, 376, 448, 506, 509, 511
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Judgment
Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, Mr. Abhinaba Mukherjee, ….For the Petitioners. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ld. A.P.P., Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya … For the State. Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Mr. Partha Sarkar ….For the O.P. No.2/de facto complainant.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that due to dispute over the landed properties they have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that after filing of the suit, a false complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is opposed on behalf of the de facto complainant and the State.
The State has produced the case diary.
Considering the materials available in the case diary, the nature and extent of complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence and the statement of the victim directly implicating the petitioners for outraging her modesty and physically assaulting her and having regard to the fact that the civil suit was instituted one month after the date of the alleged 2 incident and lodging of the FIR by the de facto complainant, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Operative part
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Soumen Sen, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 308, 325, 354B, 376, 448, 506, 509, 511.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 18 Mar 2024. The bench was SOUMEN SEN, UDAY KUMAR.
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.