Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3323/2026 of NITIN KUMAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 6 October 2026
(ct. no.34) (rejected) debajyoti IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRM( A ) 3323 of 2026 In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in
7.
06-10-2026
(ct. no.34)
(rejected)
debajyoti
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
CRM(A) 3323 of 2026
In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Bowbazar Police Station Case No.98 of 2025 dated 09-05-2025 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/319(2)/
336(2)/336(3)/338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- A n d -
In the matter of : Nitin Kumar
.... Petitioner.
Ms. Subhasri Chatterjee, Adv.,
Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv.,
Mr. Rahul Pal, Adv.
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, Adv.,
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.
… For the State.
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.
1. The memo of evidence filed by the State be taken on record.
2. Apprehending arrest in G.R. (N.S.) Case No.288 of 2025 arising out of Bowbazar Police Station Case No.98 of 2025 dated 09-05-2025, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a resident of West Delhi and he obtained the transit bail. However, that has been expired and before expiry only he applied for fresh bail. Meantime, two further sections were added which are graver in nature. As a result, such petition had to be withdrawn.
4. The learned advocate representing the petitioner further submits that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail. More so, the petitioner was never an FIR named person and the allegation levelled against him is false and concocted.
5. Learned advocate for the State raises objection to the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the present petitioner is the king pin of the bank fraud committed and there are sixteen accounts found in the name of the present petitioner in course of investigation. Further, during investigation, the Branch Manager was examined and it was found that there was hacking of the banking server.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the severity of the complaint and the fact that investigation is still going on, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. The prayer stands rejected.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, dismissed.
8. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
[Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]