Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30746 (CAL)

MD ANUARUL ISLAM @ MD ANARUL ISLAM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/1223/2026 · 2026-07-28

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28.07.2026 Serial no. 625 [G.S.D] CRM (A) 1223 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Ratua PSCse No. 71 of 2026 dated 19th January, 2026 u/s 125(a)/125(b)/118(2)/109(1)/271/272/318(4)/61(2)/3( 5) of the BNS. -And- In the matter of : Md. Anuarul Islam @ Md. Anarul Islam … Petitioner(s) Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das Ms. Deblina De Ms. Srijani Das … for the petitioner(s) Mr. Krishnendu Bhttachrya, APP Mr. Pritam Roy … for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Ms. Sagika Banerjee Ms. Sarmistha Basak … for the O.P. No.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a nursing home, who has been implicated in connection with the instant case for reckless statement being made by the patients. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, learned APP, appears for the State along with a junior of his choice as per the direction of this court. The appointment of both Mr. Bhattacharya and the junior of his choice, if any, be 2 regularized by the concerned authority. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the documents available in the case diary. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary; the statement of the victim as well as the attending materials which are appearing. The investigation of the case is in progress. Having regard to the consequences suffered by the victim and the veracity of the statement at this stage cannot be assessed, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer for anticipatory bail which has been advanced. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (A) 1223 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3