Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2802/2026 of HABIBUR RAHAMAN @ MADHU MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 15 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.193. Rakib (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2802 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Domkal Police Station case no. 445 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026 under Sections 109/126(2)/118(2)/3(5) 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.
15.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.193. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2802 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Domkal Police Station case no. 445 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026 under Sections 109/126(2)/118(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1)/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9B of the Explosive Act.
And In the matter of : Habibur Rahaman @ Madhu Mondal
……Petitioner. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee Mr. Kiron Sk Mr. Rishab Ahamed Khan Mr. Sayed Hossain Mr. Jamiruddin Sk
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya Mr. Somnath Bera
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not present at the spot and was travelling and had been on a different location when the incident happened. It has been further submitted that petitioner has a political stand in the locality for which he has been foisted with the present criminal case. A specific communication was made to the police authorities regarding the absence of the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary. I have taken into account the materials appearing in the Case Diary. Having taking into account the overall circumstances and the
2 fact that the victim sustained bullet injury, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner appears before the learned jurisdictional Court, the learned jurisdictional Court would consider the communication made to the police authorities, if required, assess the genuinity of the contention of the petitioner at the relevant stage. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 2802 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.)