Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2561/2026 of RAZZAK ALI @ RAJJAK ALI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.144 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. ( A ) 2561 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Murshidabad Police Station
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.
11.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.144
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2561 of 2026
In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Murshidabad Police Station Case No. 477 of 2026 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Razzak Ali @ Rajjak Ali
... Petitioner.
Mr. Navanil De, Ms. Monami Mukherjee
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya, Mr. Haripada Nayek
... For the State.
Mr. Avik Ghosh, Ms. Ankusha Ghosh
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner after demitting his office has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case after there was a complaint at the behest of the wife of the present petitioner in respect of an incident where the petitioner was assaulted by the de facto complainant of the present case. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as the de facto complainant who is also a part of the system could not entangle the petitioner in any manner, it was immediately after his retirement on wild allegation, he has been implicated in the present case. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and
2 submits that it is the new Committee who has unearthed the present misappropriation and the Secretary has got no role in that. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the relevant documents including the enquiry which was conducted and the falsification of accounts relating to deposits which have surfaced. Having considered the overall circumstances of the present 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) 2561 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.)