Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33542 (CAL)

YEAR NABI SK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/1771/2026 · 2026-08-13

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

13.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.560 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 1771 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Beldanga Police Station Case No. 852 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025 under Sections 329(4)/117(2)/ 118(2)/109/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Year Nabi Sk ... Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Ms. Soma Mal, Ms. Rabia Khatoon, Ms. June Modak ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, APP, Ms. Rima Banerjee ... For the State. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been foisted with the present criminal case. Initially, the petitioner’s name was not divulged and the injured has subsequently incorporated his name as an assailant. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary. I have taken into account the injury sustained and the statement of the injured. So far as the issue relating to delay is concerned, it is a question of fact to be decided in course of the trial. The genesis of the case is an illicit relationship existing between the wife of the injured and the present petitioner, as a consequence of which the wife caught hold of 2 the injured at a time when the present petitioner assaulted with iron rod on the head of the injured. Having regard to the background of the case and there is a mistrust which is surfacing out, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 1771 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)