Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2278/2026 of SK TARAKNATH @ SEKH TRAKNATH AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 August 2026
Court No.446 S.Gayen IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.( A ) 2278 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lokepur Police Station Case No. 28 of
28.08.2026
SL No.32
Court No.446
S.Gayen
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(A) 2278 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lokepur Police Station Case No. 28 of 2026 dated 23.04.2026 under Sections 189(2)(3)(4)(5)/193(3)/221/223(b)/224/221(2)/138/118/109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-And-
In the matter of: Sk. Taraknath @ Sekh Traknath & Anr.
…Petitioners
Mr. Saryati Datta
Mr. Kaustav Das
…for the Petitioners
Mr. Amajit De
Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar
…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 instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in this case, almost 50 persons, including the petitioners, have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and personal grudge. He submits that 48 persons are on bail, and most of them have been granted the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring any material to substantiate the prosecution case. He submits that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the State produced the Case Diary and the Memo of Evidence and opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. The Memo of Evidence submitted by the State is taken on record.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the case diary and other materials on record.
2
5. The co-accused persons are on bail, incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence and as such, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation is not necessary.
6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.
7. I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners namely, 1) Sk. Taraknath @ Sekh Traknath and 2) Sk. Jasimuddin @ Sk. Jiban shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each , with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station till the submission of the chargesheet.
8. Thus, the application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. (A) 2278 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)