Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49180 (CAL)

DEBABRATA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/3347/2026 · 2026-10-14

Chaitali Chatterjee Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1. 14-10-2026 (ct. no.34) (rejected) debajyoti IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRM(A) 3347 of 2026 In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No.375 of 2026 dated 01-06- 2026 under Sections 306/318(2)/314/316(5)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. - A n d - In the matter of : Debabrata Mondal .... Petitioner. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv., Ms. Sadia Parveen, Adv. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Adv., Ms. Shalini Bairagi, Adv. … For the State. 1. Memo of evidence filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. The instant application has been filed for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No.375 of 2026 dated 01-06-2026 under Sections 306/318(2)/314/316(5)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the other accused persons named in the FIR who were involved in these activities of which this petitioner was not aware. One co-accused, namely, Rabindranath Chatterjee, has been already enlarged on bail and was also granted protection by the High Court passed in WPA 17245 of 2026. 4. On behalf of the State, objection has been raised and it is submitted that there is seizure list of articles which 2 were seized from the party office of the erstwhile ruling dispensation. So far as the order of one of the co-accused is concerned, it is submitted that the order was passed in connection with a writ petition and the instant case has been filed praying for anticipatory bail. 5. After going through the materials on record and after considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties, this Court does not think it fit and proper to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner, especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage. The prayer stands rejected. 6. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, dismissed. 7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 8. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]