Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2616/2026 of HOSSAN SHAK @ HOSEN SEKH @ HOSSAIN SEKH AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 14 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.164 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 2616 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.
14.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.164
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2616 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 Jibantala Police Station Case No. 536 of 2026 dated 15.06.2026 under Sections 363/365/323/325/354C/376D/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
And
In Re : Hossan Shak @ Hosen Sekh @ Hossain Sekh and another ... Petitioners.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saibal Krishna Dasgupta
... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya, Mr. Haripada Nayak
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case after there was change in administration and FIR was initiated after a long time. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the materials appearing in the case diary. Leaving aside all the materials, I have taken into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. Having considered the basic principle of law in respect of such offences, the sole testimony of the victim is one of the prime considerations and there are overt acts complained against both the petitioners in the statement under Section 183 of BNSS and also the present being a case for anticipatory bail, 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. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2616 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.)