Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3024/2026 of ABDUL AJIM @ ABDUL AJIJ @ ABDUL AZIM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 23 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 467. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 3024 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 396 of
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.
23.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 467. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 3024 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 396 of 2026 dated 20.03.2026 under Sections 137(2)/140(2)/140(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of : Abdul Ajim @ Abdul Ajij @ Abdul Azim
……Petitioner.
Mr. Md. Wasim Akram
Ms. Sabrina Parveen
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pradip Kr. Singh
Mr. Ushm Garodia
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant had a business relationship. Pursuant to which the defacto complainant is misusing factual circumstances to her own advantage.
Learned advocate for the State has relied upon number of enclosures to substantiate his case and for rebutting the contentions of the prosecution.
Be that as it may, this case is a case of anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the statement of the victim who was abducted and is of 14 years. Specific overt acts had been
2 attributed to the present petitioner by the victim and the victim was recovered by the police authorities.
Having considered the same, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail in CRM (A) 3024 of 2026 is dismissed.
Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)