Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1861/2026 of RONI @ ANISUR MOLLA @ ANISUR RAHAMAN @ A B ANISUR RAHAMAN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.16 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1861 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
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.
24.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.16
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1861 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandaneswar Police Station Case No. 34 of 2025 dated 12.04.2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Roni @ Anisur Molla @ Anisur Rahaman @ A B Anisur Rahaman
... Petitioner.
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Ms. Rajashree Tah, Ms. Aishwarya Datta, Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty, Ms. Sadia Parveen
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar
... For the State.
Mr. Debapriya Majumder
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested on 03.05.2025 and he is an Engineer who has been arrested from Haryana. Other accused persons are absconding and petitioner having been falsely implicated in the instant case is unnecessarily languishing in custody. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that it is the petitioner who led the group of persons accusing the victim of mobile theft and assaulting him to death.
2 Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the wife of the victim who was the eyewitness when the present petitioner knocked the door initially for searching her husband. The said witness has also seen the overt acts of the present petitioner. Having considered the fact that petitioner’s over act led to the incident and the prosecution has commenced proceedings under Section 356 of the BNSS, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for 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 bail, being CRM (M) 1861 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.)