01-09-2026 Item no.6 rejected Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRM(A) No.2503 of 2026 Mr. Soumishtha Banerjee -vs- The State of West Bengal In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Balagarh P.S. Case No.417 of 2026 dated July 12, 2026 under sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and sections 3(5)/316(2)/ 318(4)/329(3)/336(3)/338/340(2)/ 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 Mr. Subhasish Pachhal Mr. Surajit Chakraborty Mr. Subhajay Sen …for the petitioner Mr. Sayak Chakraborty, JGA Mr. Aditya Tiwari, JGA Ms. Namrata Chatterjee … for the State Mr. Bankim Pal …for the de facto complainant 1. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Balagarh P.S. Case No.417 of 2026 dated July 12, 2026 under sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 and sections 3(5)/316(2)/ 318(4)/329(3)/336(3)/338/340(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He is seeking anticipatory bail under section 482 BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged case with regard to property disputes and that no incident as alleged in the case of the prosecution ever happened. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that out of the property disputes, all documents relating to such property have already been seized. According to learned counsel, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, producing the case diary, relies upon various materials in the case diary and submits that the petitioner managed to get the record of rights corrected on the basis of heirship certificate issued by the concerned authorities which was issued on the basis of an affidavit alleged to be sworn by the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State also submits that on an investigation to that effect, it has come out that no such affidavit was ever sworn by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, on the basis of forged affidavit, managed to get an heirship certificate issued by the authorities. He also submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required for the purpose of investigation. 6. On behalf of the de facto complainant, prayer for anticipatory bail is vehemently opposed. 7. From the materials collected and the information of the investigation, it transpires that a forged affidavit was used by the petitioner for the purpose of persuading the authorities to issue the heirship certificate on the basis of such affidavit. The existence of such affidavit is in question. The authorities have informed the investigating authorities that no such affidavit was ever affirmed by the present petitioner. However, it was also used for the purpose of rectification in the record of rights in respect of certain landed properties. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegations as well as the materials in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. The application for anticipatory bail is thus rejected. 10. CRM(A) 2503 of 2026 is dismissed. 2 11. All parties are to act on the website copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the court. [Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J] 3