Calcutta High Court

/2320/2026 of MD. HUMAYAN KABIR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 25 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

25, 2026 Ct. 446 SG CRM( A ) 2320 of 2026 Allowed An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Pandua P.S. Case No.350 of 2026 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 189/190/191(2)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/126

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

AD 21 August 25, 2026 Ct. 446

SG

CRM(A) 2320 of 2026 Allowed An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Pandua P.S. Case No.350 of 2026 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 189/190/191(2)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/126 (2)/109/304(2)/351(2)/352/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And

In the matter of: Md. Humayan Kabir … petitioner

Mr. Md. Hossain

… for the petitioner

Mr. Amitabha Karmakar

Mr. Soumalya Dutta

… for the State

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of about five years in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation has been offered in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the case out of personal grudge and that there is no specific allegation against him. It is also submitted that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail. In such circumstances, learned counsel submits that the petitioner may also be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State produces the Memo. of evidence, case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. Memo of evidence filed by the State is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the case diary and other materials on record.

2 The materials on record indicate that there is a delay of five years in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation has been offered in the FIR. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, and there is no allegation of any specific overt act against the petitioner. Taking into of this aspect, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead