Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3077/2026 of MASIYAR MIDDE AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 1 October 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 9. Kausik (PartlyAllowed) CRM ( A ) 3077 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Pursurah Police Station Case No. 158 of
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.
01.10.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 9. Kausik (PartlyAllowed)
CRM (A) 3077 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Pursurah Police Station Case No. 158 of 2026 dated June 07, under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/115(2)/109(1)/352/351(2)/76/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
And
In the matter of : Masiyar Midde & Anr.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury
Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh
Ms. Sulagna Sarkar
……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Ld. APP
Ms. Priti Kar Bagchi
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case over issues relating to Indira Awas Yojana. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and their liberty may not be jeopardized.
State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of both the petitioners, drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the injured as well as the injury report.
I have taken into account the same and I find that the overt acts attributed to petitioner no. 1 in respect of inflicting vital injuries.
In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1 namely Masiyar Midde is hereby rejected.
So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner no. 2, namely, Rahim Mallick be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer of the case and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is in progress, petitioner no. 2 shall report to the investigating officer within a period of 10 days and on all subsequent dates fixed by the investigating officer till the report in final form is submitted before the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, CRM (A) 3077 of 2026 is partly allowed. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)