Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3071/2026 of MD SAHANAYAJ SEKH @ MD SAHANAH SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 September 2026
29.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M ( A ) 3071 of 2026 Md Sahanayaj Sekh @ Md Sahanah Sk Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
D/L 31
29.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (A) 3071 of 2026
Md Sahanayaj Sekh @ Md Sahanah Sk
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 Krishnagar Women Police Station Case No. 29 of 2026 dated 11.05.2026 under Sections 85/89/117(2)/351(2)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 67
of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
And
In the matter of :
Md Sahanayaj Sekh @ Md Sahanah Sk
……Petitioner.
Mr. Avinaba Patra
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Premanand Sharma
Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary
Mr. Lokesh Sharma
…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 is present and prays for anticipatory bail.
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the memo of evidence prepared by the Investigating Officer of the case which reflects petitioner was called as a witness and not as an accused.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the contention on behalf of the State is that petitioner is presently not required in connection with the present case. As such, if in future petitioner is required as an accused, in such circumstances a notice be served and seven days time be granted to the petitioner to exhaust the available remedies under law.
4. In view of the observations made above and the stand of the State, the application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M.(A) 3071 of 2026 is dismissed as infructuous.
5. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. A copy of the memo of evidence be handed over to the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.
6. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)