Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/488/2026 of BAPAN BARMAN Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 September 2026
No.07 Jalpaiguri 29.09.2026 sp CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
AD-4
Ct No.07
Jalpaiguri
29.09.2026
sp
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 488 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 28 of 2025 dated 13.01.2025
under
Sections
318(2)/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/347(1)/348/349/350(1)/350(2)/
61(2)/111(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 102/103/104 of the Trade Mark Act and read with Section 51/63 of the Copyright Act,
1957.
And
In the matter of: Bapan Barman
…. Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Guha Roy,
Mr. Ananda Paul.
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Janardan Periwal,
Ms. Ruchika Agarwala
Mr. Debabrata Rai
..for the State.
Mr. Gobinda Saha.
..for the de facto complainant.
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 Investigating Officer of the Maynaguri Police Station is present in Court. He has filed a report dated 29.09.2026 indicating that despite the order dated 22nd July, 2026, the petitioner has met LSI Lucky Tshering Lepcha of the Maynaguri Police Station and not the Inspector-in-Charge or the Investigating Officer.
2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The earlier one was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not come to meet the Investigating Officer. The defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that he was not informed by the advocate of such requirement.
2
3. This Court is unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by Maynaguri Police Station that charge sheet has since been filed.
5. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for anticipatory bail.
6. Hence, CRM (A) 488 of 2026 is hereby dismissed.
7. The report of the Inspector-in-Charge, Maynaguri Police Station dated 29.09.2026 is kept with the record.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)