Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/927/2026 of DEBASHISH KARMAKAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 14 September 2026
Court No.35. M/L. 104. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 927 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 Haripal Police Station Case No. 107 of 2026
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. M/L. 104. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 927 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 Haripal Police Station Case No. 107 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026 under Sections 115(2), 329(4), 351(2), 352 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 12 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Debashish Karmakar
……Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Kumar Mondal
Mr. Sumit Routh
Ms. Ritika Yadav
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lokesh Sharma
Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a dispute in the family for which the complainant has foisted a criminal case upon the elder brother- in-law.
State has produced the case diary.
I have taken into account the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS of the complainant as well as the victim. On an assessment of the same, although there are some force in the statements of the learned advocate regarding the previous
2 criminal antecedents but so far as the present case is concerned there are specific accusations against the present petitioner at the instance of the 6 years old victim also.
Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, namely, Debashish Karmakar in CRM (A) 927 of 2026 is rejected.
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.)