21.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.72 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. partly allowed C.R.M. (A) 2687 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Paikar Police Station Case No. 649 of 2025 dated 03.12.2025 under Sections 85/115(2)/117(2)/76/ 109/351(2)(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 3014/2025). And In Re : Safiz Sk and others ... Petitioners. Mr. Bitasok Banerjee, Ms. Debangana Bhattacharya ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Subhasish Pachhal, Mr. Shivam Mishra ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law and petitioner no.3 is uncle-in-law of the informant. Learned advocate appearing for the State at the very inception opposes the renewal of prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1. State has produced the case diary and drawn the attention of this Court to the injury report of the informant. I have taken into account the overall materials appearing in the case diary. Having regard to the fact that there are no new circumstances which have been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner no.1, I am of the opinion that it would not be fit and proper to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1. As such, the prayer 2 for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1 viz. Safiz Sk is rejected. So far as the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner no.2 viz., Riyajul Sekh and petitioner no.3 viz., Sarif Sk @ Md. Sarif Sk shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the jurisdictional court, this order of anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner nos.2 and 3 will remain in force for a period of six weeks from date. 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) 2687 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)