Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/1858/2026 of SAKIL SHAIKH @ SHAKIL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 11 September 2026
11.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M ( A ) 1858 of 2026 Sakil Shaikh @ Shakil Sk Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
M/L 133
11.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (A) 1858 of 2026
Sakil Shaikh @ Shakil Sk
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of Berhampore Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 05 of 2025 dated 14.02.2025 under Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66E/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
And
In the matter of : Sakil Shaikh @ Shakil Sk.
……Petitioner.
Mr. Golam Nure Imrohi
Ms. Pipasa Chakraborty
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya, Sr. Gov. Adv
Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya
…for the State
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.
1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having a relationship. After the relationship snapped petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. I have taken into account the accusations and the materials presently appearing which reflects that there was circulation of private and personal photographs of the victim.
Having considered the same I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
4. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in CRM (A) 1858 of 2026 is dismissed.
5. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
6. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)