Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7019 (CAL)

MD ZAHID v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/1096/2026 · 2026-04-10

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10.04.2026 Court No.28 Item No.15 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 1096 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Beniapukur P.S. Case No.93 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. And In the matter of: Md. Zahid ….Petitioner. Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder Mr. Indranil Halder Ms. Neha Singh …for the petitioner. Mr. Anwar Hossain Mr. Santanu Deb Roy …..for the State. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas ….for the CESC Ltd. Copy of the payment receipt filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the CESC Limited submit that without prejudice the petitioner had deposited more than half of the finally assessed amount before the Electricity authority. Heard the learned counsel for the State. Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount 2 each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with investigation, shall meet the I.O. as and when required and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. (Jay Sengupta, J.)