Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/533/2026 of SUBHAN DAS @ SUBHAM DAS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 July 2026
Court No.11 (GB) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at
29.07.2026
Item No.13
Court No.11
(GB)
Calcutta High Court
In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
CRM (A) 533 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, in connection with Pradhannagar Police Station Case No.67
of dated
28.01.2026
under
Sections
338/336(2)/318(4)/351(2)(3)/109/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In the matter of: Sri Subhan Das @ Subham Das
….Petitioner.
Ms. Puja Roy
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP.,
Mr. Reshab Kumar,
Ms. Trishna Roy
… 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 petitioner prays for pre-arrest bail in connection with Pradhannagar Police Station Case No.67 of 2026 dated 28.01.2026 under Sections 338/336(2)/318(4)/351(2)(3)/109/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on the ground that he was merely a witness in the deed of conveyance and totally unconnected with the offence. He refers to the contents of the First Information Report in support of such contention. It is further submitted that the call records have not been traced by the police which would point towards involvement of the petitioner. It is also stated that money trail has not been traced to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the prayer should be allowed.
2. The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary.
3. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a similar kind of transaction on an earlier occasion and he was arrested. On the allegation of a commission of a similar type of offence, the prayer for
pre-arrest bail is refused. The remedy of the petitioner is to approach before the learned jurisdictional court and pray for regular bail.
4. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 533 of 2026 is rejected and disposed of.
5. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)