02.09.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.5 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 2353 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973) filed on 15.07.2026 in connection with Rahara Police Station Case No. 264 of 2026 dated 20.06.2026 under Sections 126(2)/329(3)/324(4)/308(2)/308(3)/ 308(5)/308(6)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. (G.R. Case No. 4387 of 2026) And In Re: Dibakar Bhattacharjee @ Dibakar Bhattacharya … … Petitioner Mr. Shounak Mondal … … for the petitioner Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Ms. Sagnika Banerjee Ms. Sarmistha Basak … … for the de-facto complainant Mr. Subhabrata Chowdhury Mr. Shoumilya Mazumder … … 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 Rahara Police Station Case No. 264 of 2026 dated 20.06.2026 under Sections 126(2)/329(3)/324(4)/308(2)/308(3)/ 308(5)/308(6)/ 351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to political rivalry. He further submits that the allegation of the de-facto complainant that the petitioner had extorted money from him at gunpoint is totally false. He also submits that the de- facto complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner, in 2 which the petitioner has been discharged. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted pre-arrest bail. 3. Mr. Chowdhury, 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, using his political influence, has extorted money from various persons at the relevant point of time. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. 4. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant, also strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner belonged to the then ruling political party and, using his political power, was involved in various sorts of illegal activities in the locality. Out of fear of being harassed, the people of the locality did not come forward to lodge any complaint against him or raise their voice. He further submits that not only the petitioner, but also his close associate, namely, Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait, another co-accused, has taken money from different persons and forced one of them to transfer property in his name. He also submits that the petitioner has transferred a huge amount of money to his own bank account by way of extortion. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he belonged to the previous ruling party and, using his political influence, had extorted 3 money from different persons, threatened them at gunpoint, and forcibly grabbed their properties. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. 8. Considering the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offences, and the mode and manner in which the offences were allegedly committed, I am of the opinion that, in the present case, it would not be apposite to hold that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. As such, this is not a fit case to grant him pre-arrest bail. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 10. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)