Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37067 (CAL)

SAJJAD ALI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM (A)/2865/2026 · 2026-09-01

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

01.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.850 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2865 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No. 716 of 2026 dated 13.08.2026 under Sections 64/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Sajjad Ali ... Petitioner. Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Ms. Deblina De ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, APP, Ms. Priti Kar Bagchi ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the accusations which have been made against the petitioner are after the period of one year. Both the parties were known to each other. As such, the issue of violation of privacy of the victim is questionable. There is a delay in registration of the FIR. As such, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. I have taken into account the materials which are appearing particularly the incident of 20.06.2026 at 9 p.m. So far as the delay is concerned, the same has been explained in application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. 2 Some of the other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Having considered the overall circumstances and the prayer being for anticipatory bail, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2865 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)