02.09.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.6 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 2355 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. 269 of 2026 dated 20.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/308(2)/308(5)/74/223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. (G.R. Case No. 4450 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. Lokesh Sharma Mr. Rishav Kumar 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 Rahara Police Station Case No. 269 of 2026 dated 20.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/308(2)/308(5)/74/223 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 present case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by a relative of the petitioner. He also submits that the case was initiated immediately after the results of the Assembly Election of 2026 were announced. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the 2 present petitioner is not necessary and he may be granted pre-arrest bail. 3. Mr. Sharma, 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, from the bank account statement of the co-accused, viz., Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait, a close associate of the petitioner, it would be evident that certain amounts of money were credited to the bank account of the petitioner. He further submits that ownership of certain land was forcibly transferred in the name of the wife of Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. He also submits that the co- accused, viz., Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait, was arrested in this case and firearms were seized from his possession. 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 extorting money from various persons, including the de-facto complainant herein. Firearms were recovered from the possession of Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait, who is a close associate of the petitioner. The ownership of certain land was forcibly transferred in the name of the wife of Sk. Sukur Ali Purkait. 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. 3 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he belonged to the previous ruling party and, using his political power, had extorted money from different persons, threatened them at gunpoint, and forcibly grabbed their properties. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. 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 and, as such, this is not a fit case to grant him pre-arrest bail. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 9. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)