Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49432 (CAL)

RAMKRISHNA SARKAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/3508/2026 · 2026-10-15

Debangsu Basak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

15.10.2026 DL-2 Court No.37 [Bench ID-265691] (AD) (Rejected) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M. (A) 3508 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Town Police Station Case No.212 of 2026 dated 25.06.2026 under Sections 3(5)/316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to GR Case No.2254 of 2026, now pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24 Parganas. And In the matter of: Ramkrishna Sarkar & Anr. ….petitioners Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Advocate Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Sulagna Sarkar, Advocate … for the petitioners Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Saurandra Betal, Advocate Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Advocate … for the State Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Advocate Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Advocate … for the de facto complainant 1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioners stand implicated in a case of cheating. 3. A police personnel amongst others allegedly invested in the business of the petitioners. Noticing such statement in the complaint, the Court required the State to inform the Court as to whether, a police personnel can indulge in such activities while in service or not. 4. In response to the query of the Court, it is submitted on behalf of the State that, such police personnel is being proceeded against departmentally and was placed under suspension. 5. So far as the materials in the case diary are concerned, it 2 demonstrates that, there is a requirement of investigation into the involvement of the petitioners. 6. Enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail is likely to cause prejudice to the investigation. 7. In such circumstances, I am not minded to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. 9. C.R.M. (A) 3508 of 2026 is dismissed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) ABHIJIT DAS Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS Date: 2026.10.15 13:00:07 +05'30'