Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2627/2026 of DIPANKAR DUTTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 September 2026
Item No.169 ssi CRM ( A ) 2627 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No.870 of 2026 dated 04.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/338/340 (2)/3(5) of the BNS,
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.
14.09.2026 Court No.35 Item No.169 ssi CRM (A) 2627 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No.870 of 2026 dated 04.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/338/340 (2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of: Dipankar Dutta. …. Petitioner.
Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir Ms. Soma Mal Ms. Rabia Khatoon Mr. J. Modak Mr. Debarpan Bose
…for the petitioner
Dr. Pradip Banerjee, ld. APP Ms. Shalu Gupta
..for the State
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a civil dispute has been given the flavor of a criminal proceeding and as such, prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that it is the present petitioner who represent himself as owner and received money for selling of a property. So far as the prosecution case is concerned, the ownership which was represented therein was on the basis of forged and fake documents.
Having considered the materials which reflects production of forged documents being the basis of selling his property, I am of the opinion this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2627 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed.
2
Memo of evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)