Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3043/2026 of KUNAL DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
- 423 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.( A ) 3043 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Narendrapur Police Station
28.09.2026
Sl. No. - 423
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(A) 3043 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 619 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(1)/118(2)/324(4)/109/351(2)/
61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-And-
In the matter of: Kunal Das
…Petitioner
Mr. Arka Banerjee
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Biswajit Tiwari
Mr. Arka Mukherjee
…for the State
Mr. Ranajit Ray
… for the De-facto Complainant
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 for the petitioner again prays for accommodation.
2. I have taken into account the injury report and the statement of the injured, Sanjib Halder as produced by the State.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail and refers to the order passed in CRM (A) 2849 of 2026.
4. Having considered the complicity of the present petitioner, particularly the injured having explained the complicity of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
2
5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, namely, Kunal Das is rejected.
6. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M. (A) 3043 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.)