Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2285/2026 of UMOR SK. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 1 September 2026
Sl. No.24 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2285 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kandi Police Station Case No.129 of 2022 dated 09.03.2022 under sections 302/102B/34 IPC And In Re: Umor Sk.
01.09.2026
Sl. No.24
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2285 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kandi Police Station Case No.129 of 2022 dated 09.03.2022 under sections 302/102B/34 IPC
And
In Re: Umor Sk.
… … Petitioner
Mr. Manas Kr. Das
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi
… … 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. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner is not a FIR-named accused. The complicity of the petitioner transpires from the statement of a co-accused person. The charge-sheet in this case has been submitted. According to him, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein.
3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record, including the injury report. The injury report indicates that the victim suffered multiple deep-cut injuries on his head and that the death was due to the effect of such injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature. Though the charge-sheet has been submitted, liberty has been reserved to file a supplementary charge-sheet. Taking note of this fact and considering the mode and manner in which the offence has been
2 committed, and on further consideration that the petitioner’s name has transpired from the statement of a co-accused who was an eyewitness to the incident, I am of the view that it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioners.
4. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)