1 D/L 10 17.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (A) 2952 of 2026 Abdul Hadi @ Hadi & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 12 of 2026 dated 03.01.2026 under Sections 329(3)/115(2)/117(2)/109/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of : 1. Abdul Hadi @ Hadi 2. Akmal Hossain @ Md. Akmal Hossain 3. Abu Talaha @ Abu Talaha ……Petitioners. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr.Adv Mr. Soumya Nag …for the Petitioner Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Sagnika Banerjee …for the State Mr. Apan Saha Mr. Musharraf Alam Sk Mr. Sk. S. Nawas …for the De Facto 1. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are named in the charge-sheet becase their children/grand-children are studying in the school. There was a large mob. Petitioners could have been present and there were no overt acts yet they have been foisted with the present case. Additionally it has been submitted that the injuries which have been inflicted are not commensurate with the factual descriptions of the eye- witnesses or the injured witnesses. 2 2. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that there are specific allegations so far as the present petitioners are concerned. 3. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produced the Case Diary. 4. I have taken into account the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS of both the injured. The name of the present petitioners are appearing specifically in respect of the persons who were present at the time the teacher-in-charge and the Superintendent of the Madrasah were being assaulted after being locked in a room. 5. Having regard to the nature of the incident I am of the opinion that although charge-sheet have been submitted but this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. However, if the petitioners appear before the jurisdictional Court and pray for regular bail, independently the learned jurisdictional Court will consider the same. 6. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in CRM (A) 2952 of 2026 is dismissed. 7. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)