Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/786/2026 of SAMIR GHOSH @ KALU Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 October 2026
Item No.10 AP HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRM ( A ) 786 of 2026
08.10.2026
Court No.07
Item No.10
AP
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 786 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No.988 of 2026
dated 14.09.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(2)/109/
74/303(2)/324(4)/326(g)/308(5)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Sections 25(1-B)/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(B)(11) of the Explosive Act.
And
In the matter of: Samir Ghosh @ Kalu
…. Petitioner.
Ms. Mousumi Bhowal
Ms. Taniya Bhowmik
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, APP
Mr. Bapi Sarkar
Mr. Supritam Nag
…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. The application for anticipatory bail is canvassed on the ground that the accused No.1 has already granted interim bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
2. This Court, however, notes from the Case Diary that the allegation against the petitioner and the other accused persons is, inter alia, that they attacked a rally of a rival political party. They also entered into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted them and molested one of the residents thereat. Sums of money were also extorted from the de facto complainant.
2
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)