CRM (A)/2220/2026 of MOKADDAM HOSSAIN @ BABU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 25 August 2026

25.08.2026 Court No.446 Item No.9 ssi CRM (A) 2220 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No.407 dated 07.05.2026 under Sections 49/109/115(2)/124/126(2) and 303 (2) of the BNS 2023. And In the matter of: Mokaddam Hossain @ Babu …. Petitioner

Mr. Soupal Chatterjee Ms. Madhumita Chatterjee

…for the petitioner

Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay

..for the State

Ms. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case owing to political rivalry and personal grudge, with a view to harass him. Referring to an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in an application for anticipatory bail, registered as CRM (A) 2445 of 2026, she submits that the Co-ordinate Bench observed that there was nothing in the case diary to indicate that the seized article had been sent for chemical examination to ascertain the presence of petrol and that the injury report did not disclose any injury whatsoever on the person of the victim. She further submits that the prosecution has failed to place any material warranting the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the principal accused has already been granted bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned advocate submits that the petitioner may be granted the privilege of pre- arrest bail.

Mr. Sagar Saha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State, places the memorandum of evidence and the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the memorandum of evidence indicates that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and has been involved in several criminal cases. The memorandum of evidence, as placed before this Court on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

Heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record including in the C.D and memorandum of evidence.

Indisputably, the criminal antecedents of an accused are one of the factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with an application for bail or anticipatory bail. However, such factor cannot, by itself, be the sole criterion for determining such an application. In the present case, there is no seizure list evidencing the seizure of any liquid substance such as petrol. The Co-ordinate Bench has also observed that there is no material in the case diary to indicate that any seized article was sent for chemical examination to ascertain the presence of petrol. The injury report, on the other hand, does not disclose any injury having been suffered by the victim. It is also not in dispute that the principal accused has already been granted bail. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into consideration that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the presence of direct evidence and that there is no demonstrable need for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the ACJM, Chanchal, Malda 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 and on further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)