27.08.2026 Sl. No. 15 Ct. No.551 Mujahid IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(A) 2505 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Domjur Police Station Case No. 474/2026 dated 07/07/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. -And- In the matter of: Sk Helal Uddin alias Sheikh Helal & Ors. …Petitioners Md. Abdur Rakib Mr. Basha Mir Mr. Mojahid Mehedi …for the Petitioners Ms. A Banerjee Mr. Ayan Mitra …for the State Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Apurba Ghosh … for the de facto complainant 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to put pressure upon them to leave the tenanted premises. He submits that their father was a tenant in respect of the shop room under the father of the de facto complainant. He submits that nothing as stated in the First Information Report took place. They pray for anticipatory bail. 2. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the State relies upon various materials in the case diary including the receipt showing transfer of some amount of gold to the 2 petitioners by the de facto complainant. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Upon hearing the rival contention and on perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the petitioners are alleged to have been entrusted with 300 grams of gold ornaments by the de facto complainant which they never returned as agreed between them. The case diary contains that such agreement has been signed by petitioner no.1. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that he challenges such signature appearing to be that of the present petitioner no.1. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and materials in the case diary, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. At this stage, the prayers for bail of the petitioners are rejected. 7. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 2505 of 2026 is dismissed. 8. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)