Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34431 (CAL)

ABDUL HALIM @ HALIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2391/2026 · 2026-08-18

Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

18.08.2026 Serial no. 13 Court no.551 (MKP) CRM (A) 2391 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Kaliachak PS Case No. 317 of 2026 dated 05.03.2026 u/s 179/180/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS 2023. -And- In the matter of : Abdul Halim @ Halim … Petitioner Mr. Wasim Akram, Mr. Anwar Hossain … for the petitioner Mr. Madan Mohan Roy, Mr. Anirban Kumar Banerjee. … for the State-respondent(s) 1. Memo of evidence be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in the business of Fake Currency Notes. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has transpired from the statement of co-accused made while in the custody. In any case, investigation of the case has ended in a charge-sheet as against the present petitioner as well as the other accused persons. There is no chance of absconsion. He prays for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned advocate for the State relies on the materials in the case diary and it is submitted that the petitioner 2 has the business of fake currency. He also submits that huge amount of fake currency were recovered from the accused persons. 5. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for the anticipatory bail. 6. From the materials in the case diary, it appears that huge quantity of fake Indian currency notes were recovered from the possession of the persons who were arrested with such fake currency. 7. Learned advocate for the State relies upon the statement of seizure list witnesses who have testified that the present petitioner was very much present at the time of recovery of the fake currency and managed to flea just prior to the raid conducted by the police. 8. In such circumstances, considering the nature of allegations as well as the materials in the case diary, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 9. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is Rejected. 10. CRM(A) of 2391 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md.Shabbar Rashidi. J)