Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3508/2026 of RAMKRISHNA SARKAR AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 15 October 2026
DL-2 Court No.37 [Bench ID-265691] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. ( A ) 3508 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New
15.10.2026
DL-2
Court No.37
[Bench ID-265691]
(AD)
(Rejected)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.R.M. (A) 3508 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Town Police Station Case No.212 of
Page 1 of 3
dated
25.06.2026
under
Sections
3(5)/316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to GR Case No.2254 of 2026, now pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.
And
In the matter of: Ramkrishna Sarkar & Anr.
….petitioners
Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Advocate
Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh, Advocate
Ms. Sulagna Sarkar, Advocate
… for the petitioners
Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Saurandra Betal, Advocate
Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Advocate
… for the State
Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Advocate
Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Advocate
… for the de facto complainant
1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioners stand implicated in a case of cheating.
3. A police personnel amongst others allegedly invested in the business of the petitioners. Noticing such statement in the complaint, the Court required the State to inform the Court as to whether, a police personnel can indulge in such activities while in service or not.
4. In response to the query of the Court, it is submitted on behalf of the State that, such police personnel is being proceeded against departmentally and was placed under suspension.
5. So far as the materials in the case diary are concerned, it
Page 2 of 3
demonstrates that, there is a requirement of investigation into the involvement of the petitioners.
6. Enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail is likely to cause prejudice to the investigation.
7. In such circumstances, I am not minded to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
9. C.R.M. (A) 3508 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.10.15 13:00:07 +05'30'
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…