25.08.2026 Serial no. 23 Anticipatory bail [Rejected] Dd In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdictional Appellate Side CRM (A)/2517/2026 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Khardah Police Station Case No. 344 of 2026 dated 26.06.2026 under Sections 3(5)/ 308/ 351(3)/ 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to GR No. 4548/2026). -And- In the matter of : HARADHAN DUTTA … …Petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kumar Shaw, Advocate … … For the Petitioner Mr. Gurudas MItra, Advocate Mr. Utsav Dutta, Advocate … …For the State 1. As per the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner has not committed any offence at all. No offence under Section 308(5) of the BNS, 2023 is made out against the present petitioner on the facts narrated in the written complaint. 2. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State refers to the materials in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. He submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the extortion of money. A case for extortion is squarely made out against the present petitioner. 3. Upon going through the materials in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 183 2 of the BNSS, 2023, as well as other materials in the case diary, it appears that so far as present petitioner is concerned, there are materials in the case diary that the petitioner was very much present when the de facto complainant was allegedly threatened by the other accused persons for parting with money for the purpose of approval of a project. Not only that, the materials in the case diary also indicate that the present petitioner was present who also could pressurize upon the de facto complainant to meet the illegal demands of other accused persons. 4. In view of the aforesaid materials in the case diary as well as considering the nature of allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 6. CRM (A)/2517/2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)