Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3143/2026 of MD DIDARUL ISLAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 1 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.41 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 3143 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mothabari Police Station Case No.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.41
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 3143 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mothabari Police Station Case No. 692 of 2026 dated 25.08.2026 under Sections 3(5)/316(4)/316(5)/ 318(4)/336/344/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Md. Didarul Islam
... Petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Debnath, Ms. Bishalaxmi Ghosh, Ms. Taniya Chakraborty, Mr. Md. Nesab Sarkar, Ms. Anisha Haque
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP, Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the Manager of Chhabilpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited and has been foisted with the criminal case with change in administration. The audit/re-audit was done in the year 2025 and the FIR has been registered in the year 2026. Petitioner claims that he has been victimised and the case being specifically on documents, the custodial detention of the petitioner may not be warranted. As such, he may be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, there are
2 specific accusations relating to rupees 3.69 crores being defalcated. So far as the total sum of the Samabay Samity is concerned, more than seven crore rupees is involved and investigation of the case is in progress. Having considered the complexities of investigation and the accusations which have surfaced partially in course of investigation, 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. 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) 3143 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.)