Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2989/2026 of ADITYA VERMA @ ADITYA KUMAR VERMA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.27 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 2989 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Airport Police Station Case No.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.27
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2989 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Airport Police Station Case No. 159 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 7329/2025).
And
In Re : Aditya Verma @ Aditya Kumar Verma
... Petitioner.
Mr. Suman Chakraborty
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhabrata Chaudhury, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah
... For the State.
Mr. Malay Dhar
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the informant were major and had a consensual relationship and subsequently the petitioner has been foisted with the present criminal case. Learned advocate for the de facto complainant is present. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim. Records of the materials available in the case diary reflect that a child was born because of the relationship which has been disowned by the present petitioner. Be that as it may, having regard to the accusations and the consequences, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case
2 for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory 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 anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2989 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.)