27.08.2026 Item No. 05 Ct. No. 39 C.R.M.(A) 1928 of 2026 AN (REJECTED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Paikar Police Station Case No. 51 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026 under Sections 329(4) / 115(2) / 118(2) / 109(1) / 79 / 351(3) / 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and corresponding to G.R. Case No. 330 of 2026 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum. In the matter of : Abdus Samad Mondal … Petitioner. Mr. Bitasok Banerjee Ms. Debangana Bhattacharyya …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunil Gupta …for the State. 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner alongwith the other family members have been falsely implicated in this case due to a long landed property dispute. A civil case is also pending and there is an order of status quo to be maintained by the parties. Despite the said facts, the de facto complainant further started the dispute over the said property. There exists case and a counter case between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner on any terms and conditions. 2. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the State produces the memo of evidence and the case diary, 2 the injury report and relies upon the statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, the case diary, including the statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023, and the injury report, this Court finds there are sufficient materials and direct allegation against the present petitioner who assaulted the victim by a knife in his abdomen. The injury is grievous in nature and the weapon used is also dangerous. 4. Considering the above facts, this Court finds that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the present petitioner, and the prayer for anticipatory bail is thus, rejected. 6. C.R.M.(A) 1928 of 2026 stands dismissed. 7. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 8. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)