Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37088 (CAL)

SAGIR MOLLA @ SABIR HOSSAIN MOLLA AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

/2834/2026 · 2026-08-31

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

31.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.80. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 2834 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Ausgram Police Station case no. 278 of 2026 dated 16.06.2026 under Sections 448/384/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of : Sagir Molla @ Sabir Hossain Molla & Ors. ……Petitioners. Mr. Arun Shaw ......for the Petitioners. Mr. Amit Halder Ms. Supriya Mahajan ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioners have been implicated in connection with the instant case because of change in administration. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the nature of the accusations which commences from the year 2011. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that custodial detention of the present petitioners are uncalled for. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners namely, (1) Sagir Molla @ Sabir Hossain Molla, (2) Mojarul Mandol @ Monjur and (3) Sonarul Sekh @ Chanchal is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is still in progress, the petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of ten days and thereafter, on all subsequent dates fixed by the Investigating Officer of the case for the sake of investigation till the report in final form is submitted before the jurisdictional Court. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 2834 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)