Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2914/2026 of AMIR CHAND MALITA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 21 September 2026
Court No.35. ADSL. 1. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2914 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. And In the matter of : Amir Chand Malita
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.
21.09.2026 Court No.35. ADSL. 1. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2914 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.
And In the matter of : Amir Chand Malita
……Petitioner.
Mr. Khalid Hasan
Mr. Subhendu Das
Mr. Noortaj Ahamed Mallick
……for the Petitioner.
Dr. Pradip Banerjee, APP
Ms. Samira Grewal
Mr. Manoj Kr. Singh
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction, petitioner has appeared before the investigating officer and co-operated with the process of investigation.
Learned advocate for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail as there was non-cooperation. A specific issue was confronted regarding the materials which have been collected. The plea taken up by the accused before the investigating officer is that the mobile set has been destroyed by him.
2
So far as the photographs which are available in the case diary collected by the investigating officer, from there sources are concerned, the same prima facie satisfy the ingredient of the offence. As such, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.
Consequently, application being CRM (A) 2914 of 2026 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.
The investigating officer of the case is present in Court. His further appearance be dispensed with.
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.)