Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2351/2026 of DILWAR SEKH @ DELWAR SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 31 August 2026
Sl. No. 9 Ct. No. 446 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2351 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hogolberia Police Station Case No. 112/2026 dated 14.05.2026 under Sections 64/329(4)/351(2) of
31.08.2026
Sl. No. 9
Ct. No. 446
SG
[REJECTED]
C. R. M. (A) 2351 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hogolberia Police Station Case No. 112/2026 dated 14.05.2026 under Sections 64/329(4)/351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re: Dilwar Sekh @ Delwar Sk.
… … Petitioner
Mr. Manas Kumar Das,
Mr. Asraf Mondal,
Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar,
Mr. Probal Das.
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Rajashree Venkat Kundalia,
Mr. Chandra Gupta Kamal.
… … 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. Affidavit-of-service as filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Despite service, de facto complainant is unrepresented.
3. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, from the FIR itself, it would appear that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of a false story cooked up by the complainant with a view to harass him out of personal grudge. He submits that pre-arrest bail be granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record, including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS. Certain incriminating materials are available against the present
2 petitioner. In view thereof, it would not be apposite to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)