Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2239/2026 of KHABIR SK @ MABIBUR ISLAM AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 August 2026
Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.2 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2239 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 09.07.2026 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 320 of 2026 dated 22.03.2026 under Sections
31.08.2026
Ct. No. 446
Sl. No.2
akd
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2239 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 09.07.2026 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 320 of 2026
dated 22.03.2026 under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/117(2)/3(5)/351(2)/74
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 969 of 2026)
And
In Re: Khabir Sk. @ Mabibur Islam & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Aliul Islam
… … for the petitioners
Ms. Ayana Dey
… … 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. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 320 of 2026, dated 22.03.2026, under Sections 109(1)/115(2)/117(2)/3(5)/351(2)/74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident occurred following a tussle between two groups. A counter- case, being Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 327 of 2026, dated 22nd March, 2026, has also been filed. The charge-sheet has been submitted. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary.
3. Ms. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the Case Diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners on
2 the basis of the materials available therein. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence and injury report.
5. There are case and counter-case between the parties. The charge- sheet has been submitted. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence. Noting these facts, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Khabir Sk. @ Mabibur Islam, (2) Esarul Sk. @ Esraul Sk. @ Esraul Hoque @ Esarul Hoque, (3) Mijan Sk. @ Mijanur Rahaman, (4) Esrafil Sk. (5) Jahangir Sk. (6) Hossain Sk. @ Bakir Hossain & (7) Ismail Sk., be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight till submission of the charge sheet.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)