Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34922 (CAL)

SK RASIDUL KARIM AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2567/2026 · 2026-08-17

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L321 17.08.2026 Bpg. Allowed C.R.M. (A) 2567 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Domjur Police Station Case No.415 of 2026 dated 23.06.2026 under Sections 448/325/379/307/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sk. Rasidul Karim & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Sayan Kanjilal Mr. Pran Gopal Das Ms. Kaniz Kulsum. …for the petitioners. Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal Ms. Kritika Jain. …for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated in the instant case after the change of administration. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there are statements under Section 183 BNSS of the affected persons. I have taken into account the overall circumstances and the incident complained of ranged from the year 2021 onwards. 2 Having the considered the period of time which has lapsed, I am of the opinion that let the investigation of the case continue but custodial detention of the petitioners may not be warranted in the facts of the present case. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner no.1, namely, Sk. Rasidul Karim and the petitioner no.2, namely, Sk. Saheb shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is in progress, the petitioners shall report to the investigating officer of the case within a period of 10 days from date and thereafter on all subsequent dates fixed by the investigating officer of the case. Thus, CRM(A) 2567 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of Evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All 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 of all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3