25.08.2026 Court No.446 Item No.12 ssi CRM (A) 2246 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.434 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 64 (1)/329 (4)/351(2) of the BNS 2023. And In the matter of: Bikram Sk @ Abdul Rajjak Shaikh …. Petitioner Mr. Tushar Shil Mr. Manas Kumar Das Mr. Prabal Das Mr. Asraf Mandal …for the petitioner Mr. Haripada Nayak ..for the State Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurata Md. Wasim Rahaman Mr. Dipankar Dutta …for the de facto Mr. Shil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the relationship, if any, between the petitioner and the victim was consensual. According to him, subsequently, disputes arose between them, following which the present case came to be instituted. He, therefore, submits that, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner may be granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Nayak, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, produces the memo of evidence and the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is an influential person and a habitual offender. According to him, on several occasions, the petitioner had attempted to violate the victim, following which a village salishi meeting was also convened. He further 2 submits that, taking advantage of the fact that it was the wee hours of the night and that the victim was alone in her house, the petitioner committed the alleged offence. He submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, if the petitioner is granted the protection contemplated under Section 482 of the BNSS, it would send a wrong message to society. Memo. of evidence as placed by the State is taken on record. Mr. Guha Thakurata, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant, adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. He submits that the petitioner is a politically influential person and may, if released on bail, tamper with the evidence and obstruct the course of the trial. He further submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the CD and other materials on record including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. Indisputably, there are certain incriminating materials in the case diary and, as jointly submitted by the learned Advocates appearing for the State and the de facto complainant, the petitioner is an influential person. In such circumstances, having regard to the possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and obstructing the course of investigation, I am not inclined to extend the protection contemplated under Section 482 of the BNSS to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)