Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prashanto Biswas vs Unknown on 6 June, 2011

Author: Ashim Kumar Roy

Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy

68   06.06.2011                             C.R.M. 1707 of 2011
Sd
                  Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of
                  Criminal Procedure filed on 23rd February, 2011 in connection
                  with Tehatta P.S. Case No 456/08 dated 31.10.08 under Section
                  395 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                               And

                      In the matter of : Prashanto Biswas.
                                                        .... Petitioner (in Jail).

                            Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mondal.
                                            ....For the Petitioner.

                            Mr. Pushpal Satpathi.
                                            ....For the State.


                            None appears for the petitioner at the time of call. We have
                   heard the learned counsel for the State. Perused the case diary.


                            The petitioner apprehended arrest for having committed
                   offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and has
                   approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.


                            The petitioner is wanted in a case of dacoity. His earlier
                   application for pre-arrest bail has been rejected by this Court in
                   the year 2008, but the petitioner has not surrendered.


                            In the given facts and circumstances, we are not
                   inclined to consider his application for pre-arrest bail, as the
                   petitioner's custody for the purpose of investigation is necessary.
             The application for anticipatory bail is accordingly
rejected.

                                   (J. N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE)

(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)