Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33244 (CAL)

ABDUL ALIM SK AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2073/2026 · 2026-08-19

Ajay Kumar Gupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

19.08.2026 Sl.No. 17 Ct. No. 39 D. Hira (rejected) In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side CRM (A) No. 2073 of 2026 In Re: An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 708 of 2026 dated 27.05.2026 under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. -And- In the matter of : Abdul Alim Sk. & Anr. … petitioners Mr. Md. Wasim Akram, Ms. Sabrina Parveen. ….for the petitioners Mr. Aliul Islam. … for the defacto complainant Mr. Arijit Banik. … for the State 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no. 2 and his wife. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, even though they are innocent. He prays for anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that both the Petitioners were present at the time of the incident and the victim suffered a grievous injury. 2 3. He further submits that the anticipatory bail of the co- accused persons, namely, Sarif Sekh @ Sk. and Arif Sekh, was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench in CRM (A) 1972 of 2026 on 27th July, 2026. 4. Learned counsel representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary and memo of evidence. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the case diary and considering the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, this court is of the view that this case is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. 7. Memo of evidence filed in court today is taken on record. 8. Consequently, CRM (A) No. 2073 of 2026 is, thus, dismissed 9. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 10. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )