Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/1268/2023dismissed as rejected

Keshab Sen Nayek @ Keshab Sen Nayak v. State Of West Bengal

2023-03-29Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

29.03.2023 Serial no. 13 [Dd] (Anticipatory bail) (Rejected) CRM (A) 1268 of 2023 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Sutahata Police Station Case No. 371 of 2022 dated 03.11.2022 under Sections 313/328/34/376/506 of IPC (G.R. NO.

2584/2022) -AndIn the matter of : Keshab Sen Nayek @ Keshab Sen Nayak ... ...Petitioner Mr. Suman Den, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Navanil De, Advocate ... ...For the State Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the father of a Church. He was defamed by the de facto complainant. He refers to the social media post of the de facto complainant. He submits that the petitioner lodged a case of defamation on October 16, 2022. Thereafter, the present police complaint was lodged.

Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also refers to a seizure list dated November 3, 2022. He submits that it would appear from the register of a Digha hotel that the petitioner and the de facto complainant checked into a room at Digha.

The de facto complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that she

was administered some drugs and, thereafter, she found herself to be in a physical relationship with the petitioner. There is a seizure list of the police which suggests that the petitioner and the de facto complainant checked into a hotel at Digha.

Prima facie case as against the petitioner stands made out. Enlarging the petitioner at this stage on anticipatory bail would be inimical to the investigations.

In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (A) 1268 of 2023 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)