Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2991/2026 of RANAJIT DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 21 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.29. Rakib (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2991 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Suti Police Station case no. 36 of 2026 dated 15.01.2026 under Sections and under Sections
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. D/L.29. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2991 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Suti Police Station case no. 36 of 2026 dated 15.01.2026 under Sections and under Sections 103(1)/109/123/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And In the matter of : Ranajit Das
……Petitioner. Mr. Kunal Ganguly Mr. Subhodip Maity
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Dr. Pradip Banerjee, Ld. APP Mr. Indradeep Das Ms. Supriya Mahajan
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been unnecessarily foisted with the present criminal case on the basis of accusation of being paramour of one of the injured/victim of the case. So far as the person who has died, petitioner did not have any enmity with the said person/deceased. However, the present criminal case is an impediment and hurting the liberty of the present petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the other injured/victim, in support of such contention State also draws the attention of the Court to the other witnesses cited in the charge-sheet who are from the locality. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
2 Accordingly, CRM (A) 2991 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State 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.)