Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3025/2026 of GOBINDA MONDAL @ GOBINDA MANDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 September 2026
no. 584 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM ( A ) 3025 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Baishnabnagar PS Case No. 316 of 2026 dated 04.04.2026 u/s 232/329(4)/117(2)/74/115(2)/118(1)/110/351(3)/3(5)o f the
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 Serial no. 584 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (A) 3025 of 2026
In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Baishnabnagar PS Case No.
of dated 04.04.2026 u/s 232/329(4)/117(2)/74/115(2)/118(1)/110/351(3)/3(5)o f the BNS.
-And-
In the matter of : Gobinda MOndal @ Gobinda Mandal
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Tapodip Gupta Mr. Golam Ahammed
… for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Kaustuv Shome Mr. Shivam Mishra
… for the State-respondent(s)
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. It has been contended that earlier there was a case under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act against the father of the present petitioner and the present petitioner is now being attempted to be foisted with the criminal case over other issues. State produces the case diary and refers to the injury reports as well as the statement of the injured. Having considered that the earlier case was under section 6 of the POCSO Act and the medical document as well as the statement of the injured in the present case do reflect the complicity of the present petitioner – the genesis of the same being for withdrawal of the POCSO case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (A) 3025 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)