Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Upon considering the material placed before us, we find that the petitioner has specifically been named in the 164 statement of the de facto complainant, who is the deceased victim’s mother. The ground taken by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a Co-…
- Para 33. Accordingly, CRM (A) 665 of 2023 is rejected for the above reasons. (PRASENJIT BISWAS,J.) (MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J.)
Judgment
Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik Mr. Kallol Acharya Mr. Biswarup Roy For the Petitioner. For the State.
#1. Upon considering the material placed before us, we find that the petitioner has specifically been named in the 164 statement of the de facto complainant, who is the deceased victim’s mother. The ground taken by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a Co- ordinate Bench granted anticipatory bail to two other co-accused cannot assist the petitioner, since the two other co-accused were on the different footing.
#2. We accordingly reject the prayer for anticipatory bail.
#3. Accordingly, CRM (A) 665 of 2023 is rejected for the above reasons. (PRASENJIT BISWAS,J.) (MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,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.