27.08.2026 Sl.No. 10 Ct. No. 39 D. Hira (rejected) In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side CRM (A) No. 2056 of 2026 In Re: An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Islampur Police Station Case No. 24 of 2026 dated 08.01.2026 under Sections 126(2)/351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. -And- In the matter of : Guljar Hussain @ Guljar @ Giljar. … petitioner Mr. Soupal Chatterjee, Ms. Madhumita Chatterjee. ….for the petitioner Mr. Md. M. Nazar Chowdhury. … for the defacto complainant Mr. Ansuman Bera. … for the State 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon an order of anticipatory bail passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and submits that earlier, the brother of the victim girl lodged a case being Islampur P.S. Case No. 1222 of 2025 dated 06.12.2025 alleging that the victim had gone missing. Subsequently, over 2 the same incident, another case was registered by the father of the alleged victim, being Islampur P.S. Case No. 24 of 2026 dated 08.01.2026, implicating the present petitioner. In earlier case, the other co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail. He prays for anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant submits that earlier the case was registered for the girl being missing and subsequently the case has been registered against the present petitioner, who has committed a serious offence upon the victim. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel representing the State produces the memo of evidence, case diary and relies upon the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail as the present petitioner is the principal accused. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the memo of evidence, case diary including the statement of the victim, the victim clearly implicated the present petitioner in the alleged offence. 6. Accordingly, this court is of the view that this case is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 3 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 8. Memo of evidence, filed in court today, is taken on record. 9. Consequently, CRM (A) No. 2056 of 2026 is, thus, dismissed. 10. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 11. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )