Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37100 (CAL)

SAHEB SK AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2843/2026 · 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. 89. Kausik (Allowed) CRM (A) 2843 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Ketugram Police Station Case No. 342 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026 under Sections 329(4)/115(2)/117(2)/109(1)/308(5)/324(4)/75/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of : Saheb Sk & Ors. ……Petitioners. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Rajashree Tah Ms. Aishwarya Datta Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty Ms. Sadia Parveen ……for the Petitioners. Mr. Soumya Mukherjee Mr. Aniruddha Sarkar ….for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioners have been implicated pursuant to change of administration. Learned advocate for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 2 I find that the accusations commences from the year 2021. Having regard to the same, I am of the view custodial detention of the present petitioners is unwarranted. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners namely, (1) Saheb Sk, (2) Sanowarul Seikh, (3) Musa Sk, (4) Md. Jamil Ahmed, (5) Hasil Sk be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer of the case and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is in progress petitioners shall meet with the investigating officer within a period of 10 days and on all subsequent dates fixed by the investigating officer for the sake of investigation till the report in final form is submitted before the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, CRM (A) 2843 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. 3 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)