← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3011/2025rejected

Abukalam @ Abukalam Laskar v. State Of West Bengal

2025-09-18Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

AD 46 September 18, 2025 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 3011 of 2025 Reject An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Mathurapur P.S. Case No.187 dated 15.07.2024 under Sections 318(4)/127(2)/117(2)/303(2)/316(2)/351(3)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

And In the matter of:

Abukamal @ Abukalam Laskar ... petitioner Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Md. Hasanuz Zaman Mr. Md. Zeeshanuz Zaman Mr. Abhijit Bose Mr. Santanu Sett Ms. Sofia Nesar ... for the petitioner Mr. Koushik Kundu Ms. Sima Biswas ... for the State Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been depositing Rs.1500/- per week in cash to the de facto complainant for getting a lumpsum amount at the end of maturity. He was asked to accompany the de facto complainant to a jewellery shop to receive such sums. In order to avoid repayment, the present story is conjured up in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the de facto complainant has recently undergone kidney transplant.

Learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is no

document to show that the petitioner was paying any money to the de facto complainant. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had asked the de facto complainant to accompany him so that he could buy some gold at a lower rate. When they reached a rail gate, some assailants came in two motorbikes, abducted the de facto complainant and took away a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the de facto complainant. It is significant that no harm was done to the present petitioner. One of the motorbikes was seized. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)