Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2896/2026 of RATAN SEIKH AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 17 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.218. Rakib (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2896 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nalhati Police Station case no. 396 of 2026 dated 27.07.2026 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.
17.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.218. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2896 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nalhati Police Station case no. 396 of 2026 dated 27.07.2026 under Sections 329(4)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8/10/12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Ratan Seikh & Ors.
……Petitioners. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty Mr. S. S. Saha
.....for the Petitioners. Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Ld. APP Mr. Amit Halder Mr. Neel Chakraborty
……for the State. Mr. Jahangir Hossain Mr. Raja Roy
.......for the De-facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioner no.3, Nayan Seikh sustained injury and was treated at hospital. All the petitioners have been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case as reels were being prepared by the injured, to which present petitioners objected. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary, drawn the attention of the Court to the injury reports as well as the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant enters appearance and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
2 Having considered the materials appearing in the Case Diary, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of the anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in CRM (A) 2896 of 2026 is rejected. 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.)