Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3014/2026 of BHOLA SK @ DINMAHAMMAD SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 22 September 2026
no. 25 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM ( A ) 3014 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Krishnagar Women PSCase No. 146 of 2025 dated 19.12.2025 corresponding to GR Case No. 6335 of 2025 u/s
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.
22.09.2026 Serial no. 25 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (A) 3014 of 2026
In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Krishnagar Women PSCase No. 146 of 2025 dated 19.12.2025 corresponding to GR Case No.
of u/s 329(4)/64/62/76/117(2)/356(2)/351(3)/303/3(5) of the BNS andSectin 66E/67 of the IT Act.
-And-
In the matter of : Bhola Sk @ Dinmahammad Sk
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh mr. Amit Pramanik
… for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya, Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr.Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya
… for the State-respondent(s)
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case as he is a relation. There are no antecedents of the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated for the reasons best known to the informant. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the court to the statement of the victim under section 183 of the BNSS along with certain screen shots of the social networking site.
Having considered the overall materials, 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) 3014 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.)