Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2573/2026 of INJAMAMUL HOQUE @ INJAMUL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 30 September 2026
30.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M ( A ) 2573 of 2026 Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
D/L 1045
30.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (A) 2573 of 2026
Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul
Vs
The State of West Bengal
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of Ratua Police Station Case No.
of
dated
05.05.2025
under
Sections
318(4)/316(2)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2)/337/311 of the BNS,
2023.
And
In the matter of : Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul
……Petitioner.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad
Mr. Sagar Saha
…for the Petitioner
Mr. L. Vishal
Mr. Sanjib Das
…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. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been foisted with the present criminal case and was employed as a ICT School Coordinator. He did not have any overall control of the school affairs and his limited participation was pursuant to the directions of the administration of the school.
2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. I have taken into account the memo of evidence which has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the State. Records reflect that the case is based on documents. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. The complicity of the petitioner has also been assessed by this Court.
4. Having taken into account the overall circumstances and the petitioner willing to participate in the trial, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
5. As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, namely, Injamamul Hoque @ Injamul be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/arresting officer of the case on such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper. This would be subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6. As charge-sheet has already been submitted this order of anticipatory bail will remain in force for a period of six weeks from date.
7. Accordingly, CRM (A) 2573 of 2026 is allowed.
8. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
9. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)