Bablu Paul @ Bablu Pal v. State Of West Bengal

16/09/2025 D/L 39 Ct. No.28 S.Kundu C.R.M.(A) 2958 of 2025 Rejected In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In connection with Krishnaganj police station case no. 462 of 2024 dated 21.11.2024 under sections 103/3(5) of the BNS.

In the matter of: Bablu Paul @ Bablu Pal ... Petitioner Mr. Amit Singh ...for the petitioner.

Ms. Rituparna De Ghosh Ms. Sreetama Das ...for the State.

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been specifically named in the FIR by the victim and his role was not made clear. The petitioner's name was also not taken in the subsequent statement of the victim as also of the wife of the victim. Yet, he has been implicated thereafter. The petitioner happened to be the son-in-law of the coaccused who had come to the place of the co-accused on invitation on that particular date.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She relies on the case diary and submits that the victim had clearly mentioned about two persons by name and another, although his name was not specifically mentioned. It is quite possible that the victim who was only a neighbour

of the co-accused might not have known the name of the son-in-law of the co-accused. However, the name of the petitioner was categorically taken by the wife of the victim, the sister-in-law and the other neighbours who were eye-witnesses to the incident.

3. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

5. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)