Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2198/2026 of UMAR ALI @ ANARUL HOQUE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 August 2026
Sl. No. 12 Ct. No. 446 SG [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2198 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harischandrapur Police Station Case No. 482/2025 dated 17.05.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4) of the
24.08.2026
Sl. No. 12
Ct. No. 446
SG
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2198 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harischandrapur Police Station Case No. 482/2025 dated 17.05.2025
under Sections 316(2)/318(4)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(G.R. Case No. 1846/2025).
And
In Re: Umar Ali @ Anarul Hoque.
… … Petitioner
Mr. Tapodip Gupta.
… for the petitioner
Mr. Palash Chandra Poddar,
Mr. Kuntal Roy.
… 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. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that one employee of the petitioner’s enterprise, namely, ‘Ali Enterprise’, has committed the offence. He submits that the said employee collected money from various persons; however, the said money was not deposited in the Company’s account and the employee, namely, Abu Hena, misappropriated the same. As and when this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a complaint against him before the jurisdictional I.C. of Police, on the basis of which Raghunathganj P.S. Case No. 593/2025 dated 6th May, 2025 was started. He submits that, however, one person claiming himself to be the victim of such misdeed, namely, Abu Hena, lodged the complaint implicating the present petitioner. He submits that, taking note of these facts, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
2. Mr. Poddar, learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
2
3. The memorandum of evidence as placed is taken on record.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. The petitioner deals in chocolates, jelly and some other goods under the name and style of ‘Ali Enterprise’, and the money was credited to the account through IMPS. It is claimed by the petitioner that the said money was credited to the account of Abu Hena. However, from the materials on record, it appears that the prosecution case is based on documentary evidence. The documentary evidence has already been collected by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not warranted and the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz., Umar Ali @ Anarul Hoque be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in week till the submission of charge-sheet.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)