Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2891/2026 of TISHA CHOUHAN @ ARCHITA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 17 September 2026
Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.( A ) 2891 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chandigarh CBI/SCB/CHG Case No.
15.09.2026
M/L - 217
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(A) 2891 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chandigarh CBI/SCB/CHG
Case
No.
RC0512026S0001
dated
25.03.2026
for
the
offences
punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
-And-
In the matter of: Tisha Chouhan @ Archita …Petitioner
Mr. Akash Dutta
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Amajit De, Special PP
…for the CBI
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.
1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that as an interim measure, petitioner be granted some reliefs so far as the personal liberty is concerned. The petitioner is a lady residing temporarily within the jurisdiction of Kolkata.
2. I have taken into account the subject matter of the case.
3. Mr. De, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has pointed out that the case has been registered by the Chandigarh CBI/Special Crime Branch.
4. Having considered that the Jurisdictional Court is different and prima facie, I find there are grave allegations so far as the subject matter of the FIR is concerned, the test of complicity as to how
2 much the petitioner is involved cannot be made out by this Court as the case records are not traced out. The petitioner be better advised to approach the Jurisdictional Court for necessary direction.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
6. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M. (A) 2891 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)