Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29767 (CAL)

KINSHUK DEY @ KINGSHUK @ PAPAI AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM (A)/1939/2026 · 2026-07-23

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

23.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 652. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (A) 1939 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kalyani Police Station Case No. 667 of 2026 dated 18.06.2026 under section 329(4)/351(2)/127(2)/64(2)(1)(m)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of : Kinshuk Dey @ Kingshuk @ Papai & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abir Ranjan Neogi Mr. Sayan Mukherjee ……for the Petitioners. Ms. Hasi Saha Mr. Neel Chakraborty ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 2 is a political personality. As such, he has been implicated in the present case after a long drawn relationship became sour. Learned advocate submits that petitioner has made periodical payments to the complainant. Inspite of the same, he has been dragged in. The facts have been twisted to suit the provisions of violations under the BNS. Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the complainant 2 was under constant threat which would reveal from a statement before the judicial Magistrate. There was threat upon the father of the complainant as also the minor son of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 forced her to meet the petitioner no. 2. So far as accusation against the petitioners are concerned, the same requires investigation and prima facie, I am of the view that, the facts portrayed in the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS do require custodial detention. Having considered the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. As such prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in CRM (A) 1939 of 2026 is dismissed. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)