Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3413/2026 of ANESUR SK @ ANSUR SK @ MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 October 2026
90 Court No.37 S.D. Rejected CRM ( A ) 3413 of 2026 In re: An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Islampur Police Station Case No. 166 of 2026 dated 18.04.2026 under Sections 85/80/108/3(5) of the Bharatiya
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
08.10.2026
Court No.37
S.D. Rejected
CRM (A) 3413 of 2026
In re: An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Islampur Police Station Case No. 166 of 2026 dated 18.04.2026 under Sections 85/80/108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 subsequently Charge Sheet submitted under Sections 85/80/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
-And-
In the matter of: Anesur Sk @ Ansur Sk @ Md. Anisur
Rahaman & Anr.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Md. Golam Nur Imrohi
Mr. Partha Pratim Sinha
… … For the Petitioners
Mr. Priyankar Ganguly
Ms. Shalini Bairagi
…For the State
Petitioners seek anticipatory bail. Claim is on account of parity with other co-accused who were enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench in C.R.M. (A) 3004 of 2026 dated September 22, 2026. State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the post mortem report of the victim. She also draws the attention of the Court to the various other materials in the case diary.
Petitioner before Court is the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the victim. The death of the victim occurred on the land adjoining the matrimonial home. Neighbours implicated both the petitioners in meting out torture to the victim. Materials in the case diary apparently do not support the claim for parity of the petitioners with the co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench. Post mortem report of the victim shows that apart from anti-mortem hanging, there was evidence of physical assault on the victim. In such circumstances, I am not minded to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. The application being C.R.M. (A) 3413 of 2026 stands dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
SUROJIT DAS Digitally signed by SUROJIT DAS Date: 2026.10.09 16:59:20 +05'30'