31.08.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.24 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2291 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 13.07.2026 in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 613 of 2025 dated 28.10.2026 under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/317(4)/288/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 9(B)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. (G.R. Case No. 2674 of 2025) And In Re: Rafik Sekh … … Petitioner Mr. Bitasok Banerjee Ms. Debangana Bhattacharya … … for the petitioner Mr. Abhijit Singh … … for the State 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 613 of 2025 dated 28.10.2026 under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/317(4)/288/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 9(B)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, following an incident involving the recovery of certain materials, such as gelatin sticks and ammonium nitrate, being materials required for the purpose of blasting a stone quarry, from an abandoned house, the present petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the investigation of this case commenced on 28th October, 2025, but since then, the prosecution has failed to bring any material to connect the petitioner and the co-accused persons with the alleged offence. He also submits that the co-accused person, standing on the same footing as the 2 petitioner, has been granted pre-arrest bail. In such conspectus, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary. 3. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the present petitioner is the main kingpin and perpetrator of the alleged crime. 4. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence, seizure list and the statements of witnesses recorded under the Section 180 of the BNSS. 6. Materials on record prima facie indicates that, the abandoned house from where the materials such as gelatin sticks and ammonium nitrate have been recovered does not belong to the petitioner. One Lakhi Murmu is the owner of the abandoned house. However, the statement of the said Lakhi Murmu has not been recorded in the present case. The co-accused person has been granted pre-arrest bail. Therefore, in the absence of any convincing material justifying curtailment of the personal liberty of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner, namely, Rafik Sekh, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the 3 satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampurhat, Birbhum and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till submission of the charge sheet and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without prior permission of the concerned Investigating Officer. 8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)