Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/525/2026 of JIYARUL HOQUE @ ZEARUL HOQUE Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 July 2026
SL No.23 Court No.11 (gc) (Allowed) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH
27.07.2026
SL No.23
Court No.11
(gc)
(Allowed)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 525 of 2026
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Madarihat Police Station Case No.122 of 2024
dated
14.10.2024
under
Sections
61(2)/112/303(2)/316(3)/287/288 of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 3/5/6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.
And
In the matter of : Jiyarul Hoque @ Zearul Hoque
- Petitioner.
Mr. Sourav Ganguly,
Mr. Bibek Tarafder,
Ms. Rishita Chakraborty
….For the Petitioner.
Mr. Janardan Periwal, Ld. JPP.,
Ms. Ruchika Agarwala,
Mr. Atul Dong
… 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 Madarihat Police Station Case No.122 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024 under Sections 61(2)/112/303(2)/316(3)/287/288 of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 3/5/6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.
2. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail on the ground of parity and also on the ground that the other co- accused persons, who are actually involved in the alleged offence, were also enlarged on bail. He submits that Sushil
Das, whose name transpired in the FIR as having an important role in the incident, was also granted anticipatory bail. It is, thus prayed that, the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail on the ground of parity.
3. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail and produces the case diary. It is also submitted that the money trail has been traced to the petitioner.
4. Considering the materials-on-record, the fact that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet had been filed on September 30, 2025, this Court is of the view that not only on the ground of parity, but also on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, this Court directs that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Madarihat Police Station, except for the purpose of attending Court. The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.
6. In default, the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail without further reference to this court.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
8. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)