MANOJ MANGRATI KRISHNA DEODAS vs State of West Bengal AND ANR — CRA/42/2021
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973 Section 374(2). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 24th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0041392021
Next Hearing
09th December 2021
Filing Number
CRA /42/2021
Filing Date
06-12-2021
Registration No
CRA /42/2021
Registration Date
06-12-2021
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA , HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA , HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )
Sub-Category
Convition: Sentence/imprisonment/imprisonment & fine/probation/admonition ( 23 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL SECTION
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANOJ MANGRATI KRISHNA DEODAS
Respondent(s)
State of West Bengal AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA , HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
FOR ADMISSION
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-12-2021 | FOR ADMISSION | |
| 24-04-2026 | BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL | |
| 22-04-2026 | BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL | |
| 13-04-2026 | BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL | |
| 18-03-2026 | BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APPEAL |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court upheld Manoj Mangrati's conviction under IPC Section 376 (rape) and affirmed his 10-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine. The court found the victim's consistent testimony—corroborated by witness statements, FSL evidence of semen on the victim's clothing, and the victim's statement before a magistrate—sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of physical injury, noting the victim's age (56) and vulnerability explained her inability to resist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court upheld Manoj Mangrati's conviction under IPC Section 376 (rape) and affirmed his 10-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹20,000 fine. The court found the victim's consistent testimony—corroborated by witness statements, FSL evidence of semen on the victim's clothing, and the victim's statement before a magistrate—sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of physical injury, noting the victim's age (56) and vulnerability explained her inability to resist. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts