Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2620/2026 of HABIBULLA MIDDYA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.166 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 2620 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case
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.166
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2620 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 180 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/ 117(2)/109/351(3)/76/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Habibulla Middya
... Petitioner.
Mr. Ujjal Ray, Mr. Binit Kumar
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Ms. Shalini Bairagi
... For the State.
Ms. Ayasha Najrin
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a property dispute pursuant to which petitioner and his relations have been implicated in connection with the instant case. Additionally, it has been submitted that father of the petitioner being an accused was granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 24.08.2026 in CRM(A) 2266 of 2026. Learned advocates appearing for the State and the de facto complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the injury report as well as the complicity of all the accused persons. So far as the order dated 24.08.2026 passed in CRM(A) 2266 of 2026 is concerned, emphasis was on the age of the said
2 petitioner/accused which is 78 years. So far as the present petitioner and other accused are concerned, their complicity cannot be ruled out in view of the injury report which reflects that 11 stitches have been administered on the injured. Having considered the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner 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) 2620 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.)