02.09.2026 Item No.6 Ct. No. 551 RP Rejected C.R.M.(A) 2456 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Ashokenagar PS Case No.399/26 dated 24.05.2026 under Sections 329(3) /117(2) /109/ 308(4)/ 75/ 76/74 /64(1) /62/ 3(5) of BNS pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. And In the matter of : Fazlu Rahaman ...… petitioner Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Advocate Mr. Monajit Chakraborti, Advocate .…for the petitioner Mr. Pritam Roy, Advocate Mr. Sanjib Das, Advocate .…for the State 1. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. He submits that the allegations made in the first part of FIR that the petitioner has been named as accompanying with other accused persons, who were hurling bombs and using fire arms. He further submits that the petitioner has not named in the second incident where the victim’s modesty was allegedly outraged. He prays for anticipatory bail. 2. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the State relies upon the materials available in the case diary. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and 2 he has been involved in similar kind of incident earlier. He further submits that there are sufficient materials in the case diary implicating the present petitioner in the alleged incident. 3. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned advocate for the State and also gone through the materials in the case diary it appears that the husband of the victim was attacked by the present petitioner and others over a political dispute and he had to flee away from his house. Taking advantage of absence of the husband of the victim the petitioner and others tried to outrage the modesty of the victim. 4. Learned advocate for the State also placed two orders passed on 21st August, 2026 and 28th August, 2026 passed in CRM(A) 2693 of 2026. In such orders anticipatory bail application of the co-accused persons was rejected by this Court. 5. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and materials in the case diary, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI J.) 3