17.08.2026 DL-42 Court No.551 [Bench ID-266058] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. (A) 2437 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Uttar Kashipur Police Station Case No.85 of 2026 dated 26.05.2026 (G.R. No.4113 of 2026) under Sections 126(2)/118(1)/118(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. And In the matter of: Ruksana Bibi @ Ruksona Bibi & Anr. ….petitioners Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Advocate Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Advocate Ms. Sadia Parveen, Advocate …for the petitioners Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur, Advocate … for the State Mr. Pronojit Roy, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Mandal, Advocate … for the de facto complainant 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners moves his application for anticipatory bail. 2. It is submitted that there are private disputes in between the petitioners and the complainant party. The petitioners have also filed a counterblast case as against the complainant party in the incident. The petitioners also received injuries in such incident. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners also submits that the alleged victims have not disclosed the names of the present petitioners before the Medical Officer. No specific overact has been attributed to these petitioners. 2 In such circumstances, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners prays for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the State refers to various materials in the case diary including the injury report as also the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. He refers to the injury report which shows fracture to the victims including minor child. Another lady victim as also sustained fracture injury. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioners assaulted the victims with iron rods causing fracture injury to the victims. 7. I have gone through the materials in the case diary. Injury report in respect of the case filed by the petitioners party is also taken into consideration. 8. From the injury report contained in the case diary, it transpires that the victims sustained fracture injuries and that too the minor victim sustained fracture injury on vital part of the body, that is, vertebral part of his brain. The investigation of the cases yet to conclude. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. 3 11. C.R.M. (A) 2437 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.08.17 19:05:56 +05'30'