Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2784/2026 of MOJIBUR RAHAMAN @ MUJIBAR RAHAMAN SEKH AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 15 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.190 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 2784 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mayureswar Police Station
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
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.190
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2784 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mayureswar Police Station Case No. 168 of 2026 dated 04.06.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/ 117(2)/118(2)/329(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Mojibur Rahaman @ Mujibar Rahaman Sekh and others ... Petitioners.
Mr. Rajdatta Chattopadhyay, Mr. Kunal Banerjee, Ms. Risha Das
... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Suman Agarwal, Mrs. Madhumita Sadhukhan
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case because of rivalry and personal grudge. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary. I have taken into account the statement of the injured as well as the injury report. Having regard to the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record.
2 The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2784 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)