Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2829/2026 of RUPSAHANAJ PARVIN BEGAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 September 2026
Court No.35. M/L. 201. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2829 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 in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 461 of
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. M/L. 201. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2829 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 in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 461 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 under Sections 409/465/466/467/468/472/474/476 of Indian Penal Code.
And In the matter of : Rupsahanaj Parvin Begum
……Petitioner.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
Mr. Rajashree Tah
Ms. Sadia Parveen
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ranajoy Chatterjee
Mr. Arijit Banik
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that petitioner is innocent and the main complicity is of the Data Entry Operator. The signatures which have been inserted are all digital signatures. As such, the custodial detention of the petitioner may not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
State has produced the case diary.
I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary. The specific allegations so far as the
2 manipulation of the acknowledgment number which is supposed to be issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the belated death certificates issued.
Having considered the same and without entering further into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the nature of the criminal case requires interrogation of the present petitioner.
Considering the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in CRM (A) 2829 of 2026 is dismissed.
Case diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State.
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.)