Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2775/2026 of ARSHED MOLLA AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 15 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.189 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. C.R.M. ( A ) 2775 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
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.189
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.
C.R.M. (A) 2775 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 198 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 447/448/323/325/308/354B/427/379/406/506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And
In Re : Arshed Molla and another
... Petitioners.
Mr. Imran Ali, Mr. Md. Zeeshanuddin
... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Soumak Bera, Mr. Narattam Acharyya
... For the State.
Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mandal, Mr. Rajit Lal Maitra
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that because of political vendetta, petitioners have been implicated in connection with the instant case and the incident complained of is of the year 2021. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that for reasons beyond control, the case could not be initiated at the appropriate stage. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.
Having considered the statement of the victim, 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. However, if the petitioners appear before the jurisdictional court and pray for regular bail, the jurisdictional court would independently consider the same without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2775 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)