Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67435 (CAL)

RABIUL ISLAM@RABIUL ALAM AND ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(A)/857/2025 · 2025-12-16

Tapabrata Chakraborty

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE 16.12.2025 Court No.01 rpan/19 CRM (A) 857 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure); And In Re: Rabiul Islam @ Rabiul Alam & Others - Petitioners. Mr. Sudip Guha ...for the Petitioners. Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Dhimal Sil ...for the State. Apprehending arrest in connection with Mekhliganj Police Station Case no.291 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025 under Sections 126(2)/324(4)/221/224/132/133/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the present application has been preferred. Mr. Guha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. All the offences alleged are bailable, save and except the offence as alleged under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In the said conspectus, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary, moreso when, no notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been issued. Mr. Bhattacharjee,, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that chargesheet has not yet been submitted and though the petitioners’ names feature in the FIR and they were on the spot. They could not be arrested till date. He submits that the dispute occurred as regards user of loud speakers at midnight creating menace in the locality and a police vehicle has also been damaged. 2 In support of such contention, he has placed reliance upon the materials in the case diary, including the injury reports. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Considering the nature of accusations, the extent of complicity of the petitioners, the statements of the witnesses and the injury report, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners, moreso when, investigation is not yet complete. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 857 of 2025, is dismissed. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)