Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33976 (CAL)

PROVAT KUMAR ROY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2741/2026 · 2026-08-24

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.617 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2741 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 608 of 2026 dated 06.06.2026 under Sections 69/316(2)/79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Provat Kr. Roy ... Petitioner. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Sohail Taraffdar ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Ms. Namrata Chatterjee ... For the State. Mr. Pritam Choudhury, Mr. Indrajit Halder ... For the de facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. To that effect, immediately after certain information came to the knowledge of the petitioner, communication was made to the investigating agency. However, the investigating agency acted on one sided manner and is trying to pin down the present petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the medico-legal examination report. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 2 I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary and 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) 2741 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.)