Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3086/2026 of AINUDDIN SK. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.244 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 3086 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Hariharpara Police Station Case
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.
06.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.244
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 3086 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Hariharpara Police Station Case No. 398 of 2026 dated 02.07.2026 under Sections 117(2)/118(1)/ 118(2)/126(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Ainuddin Sk.
... Petitioner.
Ms. Minoti Gomes, Mr. Jisan Iqubal Hossain
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, APP, Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Mr. Arka Naha
... For the State.
Pursuant to the earlier direction passed by this Court, State has submitted a fresh case diary along with the statement of doctor being recorded. A Memo of evidence has also been placed before the Court. The doctor has stated that 8 to 9 stitches were administered upon the patient. However, there was assault being inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon. I have taken into account the complicity of the present petitioner and the injured has specifically named the assault with the sharp weapon being inflicted upon him by the present petitioner. Having considered the nature of injuries inflicted, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
2 Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 3086 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)