11.02.2026 Court No.28 Item No.53 ssi CRM (A) 328 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Nandakumar Police Station Case No. 483 of 2025 dated 04.11.2025 under Sections 110/115(2)/117(2)/126(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS 2023. And In the matter of: Abhijit Singha & others. …. Petitioners Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Dilwar Azad …for the petitioners Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Namrata Chatterjee Mr. Mayukh Majumder …for the de facto Ms. Rituparna De Ghose Mr. Ratul Ghosh ..for the State Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier, an FIR was lodged from the end of the petitioners on 15.10.2025 alleging assault. In fact, the petitioners suffered serious injuries. In the present case, although the date of occurrence has been shown as the same, the FIR was registered only on 04.11.2025. The petitioners have complied with notice issued under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that the victim here is a 16 years old boy. When he went to witness a “puja”, all the present petitioners and other accused abused him and then mercilessly assaulted him. The victim was hit with a bamboo stick 2 and a cricket bat, causing severe injuries on the head including brain hemorrhage. The victim was found disoriented with slurred speech. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is indeed very surprising that in such case of grievous hurt caused by dangerous caused by dangerous means/weapon, a notice was issued by the Investigating Officer under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS. Be that as it may, considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this is to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)