← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/1249/2026rejected

Debabrata Karmakar v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2026-06-25Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

25.06.2026 Sl. No.13 NB CRM (A) 1249 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hanskhali PS Case No.609/2025 dated 13.08.2025 under Sections 329(4)/115(2)/70(1)/74/75(2)/76/79/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Debabrata Karmakar ... petitioner Mr. Sayan De, Mr. Sayan Kanjilal.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Somnath Adhikary.

...........Amicus The appointment of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State may be regularised.

Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. No one appears on behalf of the de facto complainant despite service of notice.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was long standing dispute existing between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Suppressing all that, the present case has been instituted. On such ground, a coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to a co-accused. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, which clearly implicates the present petitioner. He refers to some

neighbours coming to rescue her from the clutches of the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the statements of the neighbours recorded before the police and before the learned Magistrate. These statements clearly implicate the present petitioner. He also relies on the medico legal examination report.

Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)