Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2266/2026 of ANCHAR ALI MIDDHE @ ANCHARALI MIRDE AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 August 2026
In The High Court at Calcutta Sl. No. 41 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Court No. 446 Appellate Side Moumita CRM ( A ) 2266 of 2026 In Re: An apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 180 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026 under Sections
24.08.2026 In The High Court at Calcutta Sl. No. 41
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
Court No. 446
Appellate Side
Moumita
CRM (A) 2266 of 2026
In Re: An apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 180 of 2026 dated 06.05.2026
under
Sections
126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/351(2)/76/3(5)
of
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023;
And
In the matter of : Anchar Ali Middhe @ Ancharali Mirde & Anr.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu
Md. Jannat Ul Firdous
Mr. Rajsekhar Hota
Ms. Pramita Banerjee
……for the Petitioner s
Mr. Amal Kumar Datta
Mr. Snehasis Banerjee
…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. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, out of political rivalry and personal grudge, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner no. 1 is aged about 78 years. In the facts and circumstances of this case, according to him, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the Case Diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail based on the material available in this case.
3. Memorandum of evidence as placed on behalf of the state is taken on record.
4. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties and perused the CD and other materials on record, and injury report.
5. In the present case, main allegation is directed against the petitioner no. 2. Therefore, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2 stands rejected. However, there is no specifically allegation against the petitioner no. 1 and he is aged about 78 years and as such, I am of the view that privilege under Section 482 of BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner no.1.
6. In the event of arrest, the petitioner no. 1 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 Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further conditions that the petitioners shall co- operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioners shall meet the I.O. once a week till submission of report in final form.
8. The application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 2266 of 2026, is thus, disposed of.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)