Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3054/2026 of KARTICK SARKAR @ MADAN SARKAR AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
- 427 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.( A ) 3054 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chakdah Police Station Case
28.09.2026
Sl. No. - 427
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(A) 3054 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chakdah Police Station Case No. 1129 of 2026 dated 08.08.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2)/117(2)/110/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-And-
In the matter of: Kartick Sarkar @ Madan Sarkar & Anr.
…Petitioner
Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das
Ms. Deblina De
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Arindam Dey
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh
…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 the petitioner No. 1 has been arrested. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No. 1 be dismissed as withdrawn.
2. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, learned advocate intends to pursue with the application for anticipatory bail.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the case diary.
4. I have taken into account the locus of the petitioner No. 1 with that of petitioner No. 2. The statement of the injured and the
2 injury report reflects that complicity of both the petitioners are identical.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Bidhan Krishna Sarkar @ Bidhan Sarkar is rejected.
6. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M. (A) 3054 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
8. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)