25.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.203 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 417 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Petrapole Police Station Case No. 98 of 2025 dated 06.10.2025 under Sections 319(2)/336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. And In Re : Banu Begum ... Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Mr. Soupal Chatterjee, Ms. Mekhala Kar ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Anupam Das Adhikari, Mr. Santanu Talukdar ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 146 days and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. Although there are documents to substantiate that the petitioner is an Indian citizen. To that effect, attention of the Court was drawn to the charge-sheet and the other forwarding reports which were addressed to the learned Magistrate. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and relies upon the documents of title deed of properties which were seized from the petitioner herself in respect of the name appearing in the properties of Bangladesh particularly at Mirpur. 2 I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary and the fact that the petitioner was intercepted at the Immigration Office at Haridaspur, Petrapole, North 24-Parganas. The complainant happens to be the Immigration Officer. Having considered that the Immigration authorities on the basis of documents which were seized at the time of interception do make out a case against the present petitioner and the investigating officer has already forwarded the relevant documents for cross- verification keeping open the scope of submission of supplementary charge-sheet, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 417 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)