17.08.2026 DL-54 Court No.551 [Bench ID-266058] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. (A) 2450 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.96 of 2026 dated 09.03.2026 (G.R. No.409 of 2026) under Sections 109/115(2)/126(2)/118(2)/76/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly. And In the matter of: Sk. Aftab Rahaman @ Sk. Akash Ali ….petitioner Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Kaustav Lal Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Advocate … for the State. 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner moves her application for anticipatory bail. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had been implicated in this case due to long pending property dispute. She further stated that there was an altercation at the relevant date and time. In course of such altercation, the injured persons received injuries. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the de facto complainant also sustained injuries and lodged a written complaint which was not accepted by the police authorities. A representation has been filed against such refusal but a First Information Report is yet to be registered. She prays for anticipatory 2 bail. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the State refers to the injury reports of the victim contained in the case diary. He specifically mentioned that more than one victims sustained sharp cutting injuries. According to the case made out by the prosecution, the petitioners are alleged to be carrying sword and other sharp cutting weapon with which they assaulted the complainant party causing grievous injuries. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. From the materials in the case diary as also upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner alleged to have previous grudge with the complainant party. Out of such grudge, on March 8, 2026 at 14:45 hours, the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant and his father with sword and bamboo sticks. The injury reports contained in the case diary show that the victim had deep open linear wound caused with sharp cutting weapon. Another victim had 4 cm deep cut scalp laceration injury. 6. Given the nature of allegations made out in the First Information Report as well as the materials collected in the case diary and also taken into account the injury reports of the victims, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 3 8. C.R.M. (A) 2450 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.08.17 19:02:44 +05'30'