Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3096/2026 of BISWAJIT DEBNATH AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 1 October 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 10. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 3096 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 Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 811 of 2025
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. 10. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 3096 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 Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 811 of 2025 dated 15.11.2025 under Sections 109/117(2)/118(1)/3(5)/303(2)/324(4)/329(4) of the BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of : Biswajit Debnath & Anr.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed
……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta
Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there are case and counter-case and over trivial issues petitioners have been implicated in the present case. It has also been submitted that present petitioners also sustained injury during the scuffle.
Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the injury report as well as the statement of the injured.
I have taken into account the injury report and the statement of the wife of the informant. Primarily I find that four
2 stitches were administered after assault being inflicted with a hammer.
Having considered the complicity which has been narrated in respect of the present petitioners, I am of the opinion this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail in CRM (A) 3096 of 2026 is dismissed.
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.)