Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2197/2026 of PINTU HALDER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026
Sl. No.34 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2197 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bakultala Police Station Case No.225 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026 under sections 118/109/3(5) of BNS 2023 read with
17.08.2026
Sl. No.34
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2197 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bakultala Police Station Case No.225 of 2026 dated 10.04.2026 under sections 118/109/3(5) of BNS 2023 read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act
And
In Re: Pintu Halder
… … Petitioner
Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta
Ms. Rituparna Ghosh
Mr. Sourav Sarkar
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Indradip. Das
Mr. Ayan Shubhra Bandyopadhyay
… … 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 the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Another co- accused person has been arrested. Even from the said accused person, no incriminating material has been seized and/or recovered. He submits that the prosecution has not been able to collect any cogent material to justify the denial of the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner be granted pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and Memo of Evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is a notorious criminal having criminal antecedents. He is involved in two criminal cases, namely, Bakultala P.S. Case No. 223 of 2026 under Section 19(b) of the Indian Explosives Act and Bakultala P.S. Case No. 363 of 2026 dated 15.06.2026 under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act and other provisions of the BNS.
2
3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. As noted previously, the Memo of Evidence indicates that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is a cited accused in two cases, namely, Bakultala P.S. Case No. 223 of 2026 and Bakultala P.S. Case No. 363 of 2026, both initiated under Section 9(b) of the Indian Explosives Act and other provisions of the IPC. Taking note of this fact and considering the materials on record, I am of the view that it would not be apposite to extend the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)