Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2120/2026 of RUBEL HOQUE @ RUBEL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 20 August 2026
Sl. No.7 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2120 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baishnabnagar Police Station Case No.1529 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025 under sections 179/180/61(2) of BNS 2023 And In
20.08.2026
Sl. No.7
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2120 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baishnabnagar Police Station Case No.1529 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025
under sections 179/180/61(2) of BNS 2023
And
In Re: Rubel Hoque Rubel Sk
… … Petitioner
Md. Wasim Akram
Ms. Sabrina Parveen
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Brajesh Jha
Mr. Anurag Sardar
… … 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. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that Rs. 246500/- Fake Indian Currency Notes (in short FICNs) were recovered from the bed room of his father and not from him. In course of investigation, his father was arrested and charge sheet has been submitted and his father was subsequently released on bail. He prays for pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that a huge amount of FICNs was recovered from the house of the petitioner and that the petitioner also resides in the said house. The Call Detail Record (CDR) indicates that there were continuous telephonic conversations between the petitioner and his father on the date of recovery of the FICNs and prior thereto. He submits that, in such circumstances, it would not be apposite to extend the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
2
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. The offence involved in the present case is an economic offence, which can cause serious injury to the financial health of the country, and hence, a lenient view in respect of such offence should not be taken. Though charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and one of the accused persons has been granted bail, in the given circumstances, there is every possibility of a supplementary charge-sheet being filed. I am, therefore, of the view that it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)