Enjamul Hoque @ Imran Sk v. State Of West Bengal

16.06.2026 Sl. No.71 NB CRM (A) 1608 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 Samsherganj PS Case No.219/2026 dated 30.03.2026 under Sections 140(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

And In the matter of: Enjamul Hoque @ Imran Sk.

.

... petitioner Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Mr. Golam Ahammed.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee.

....for the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. There was a dispute between the adverse parties over the sale of a landed property. 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 submits that the victim, who was abducted by the petitioner and others, was recovered upon a statement being made by one of the co-accused while in custody. He also relies on the statement of the victim and some witnesses related to the victim all of whom implicated the present petitioner.

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.)