15.05.2025 Sl. No.08 Ct. 28 NB C.R.M. (A) 1325 of 2025 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 Harishchandrapur PS Case No.303/2025 dated 26.03.2025 under Sections 317(2)/317(4)/317(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of:- Rashad Ali @ Md. Rashed Ali & Anr. … petitioners Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya, Ms. Rai Das, Mr. Wasim Akram. …for the petitioners. Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Atulya Sinha. …for the State. Leave is granted to amend the cause title. Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. There is hardly any admissible evidence available against the present petitioner. Some sacks of fertilizers purportedly meant for public distribution system were seized, but not from inside the petitioner no.1’s godown. Surprisingly, even after second inspection, the seal was found to be intact. So far as the present petitioner no.2 is concerned he is not the son of the petitioner no.1 and is not involved in the alleged offence at all. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the report, which is taken on record. He also relies on the case diary and submits as follows. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned his Aadhar Card No.934659831203 and age is about 49 years. He is not the one whom the police are looking for in the present case. Md. Mostafa @ Md. Mustafa who is an accused in this case is the son of the present petitioner no.1 and is having an Aadhar Card No.991342775508. His date of birth is shown to be 05/02/1987. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has claimed that the sacks of fertilizers from his godown could not have gone outside as the door of his godown was sealed earlier. This is rebutted by the inspection report, which revealed that the door in question was locked from inside. Obviously, there was an entrance from the other side. The sacks containing fertilizers which have been sealed are similar to the ones found present in the godown. There are statements of other witnesses, which support the prosecution case. Considering the serious nature of allegations and the materials available in the case dairy, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1. However, it is recorded that the petitioner no.2 is not required in this case. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable so far as the present petitioner no.2 is concerned. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.) 2