Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30873 (CAL)

SAPIBUL KHAN AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/462/2026 · 2026-07-27

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

27/07/2026 D/L – 611 Court No.35 S. Kundu Partly Allowed C.R.M.(A) 462 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Kolaghat P.S case no. 381 of 2024 dated 04/05/2024 under Sections 447/341/323/324/325/354/307/379/427/506/34 of the IPC. In the matter of: Sapibul Khan & Ors. ...Petitioners. Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh …for the petitioners. Md. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Bhaskar Guchait …for the de-facto complainant. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharyya Ms. Tanushree Kar …for the State. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that there were two criminal cases, one which was initiated pursuant to the injury suffered by some of the present petitioners and the present case which was at the instance of Zarina Begum. Learned advocate for the State has produced the case diary along with the injury reports and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the de-facto complainant questions the maintainability of the application as well as the complicity of the present petitioners so far as the maintainability of the application is concerned as the earlier 2 application for anticipatory bail was not preferred on merits. The order dated 22nd July, 2025 reflects that the same was withdrawn, I am of the view that the present application is maintainable on merits of the case. Having considered the injury reports and the statements of the witnesses, particularly, the injury report of Sk. Jahirul, I am of the opinion that the complicity of Sk. Selim Ali@ Selim Ali Sekh (petitioner no. 2) and Sk. Jahangir Ali (petitioner no. 5) are not similarly placed as the other accused persons, who have approached this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner nos. 2 and 5 is rejected. So far as the other accused persons are concerned, petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 their application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of arrest, the said petitioners (Sapibul Khan, Rafibul Khan @ Raphibul Khan, Sk. Alangir Ali @ Pakhi @ Sk. Alamgir Ali, Sk. Ajijul Ali @ Ak Azizul, Sk Serajul Ali, Sk Ajabul Ali, Roup Khan @ Roap Khan, Soyel Khan @ Soleman Khan, Sk Mahim Ali and Sahabul Khan) shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C/482(2) of the BNSS. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 462 of 2026 is allowed-in-part. 3 Memo of evidence filed by the State is taken on record. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)