← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3151/2025rejected

Syed Kashop Mia v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-10-31Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

31.10.2025 Sl. No.37 NB CRM (A) 3151 of 2025 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 Kandi P.S. Case No.344/2025 dated 11.07.2025 under Sections 109(1)/117(2)/126(2)/303(2)/74/3 of the BNS.

And In the matter of: Syed Kashop Mia ... petitioner Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswasm Mr. Hasanuz Zaman Molla, Ms. Salini Bhattacharjee, Ms. Rajashree Saha.

...for the petitioner.

Ms. Subhasree Patel ...for the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. A scuffle took place between girl students of a law college. The present petitioner was only present there. The injury suffered by the victim was not grievous. The principal accused being a girl was taken into custody and was thereafter released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She relies on the case diary and points to the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, which shows that the present petitioner was one of the prime accused. She also refers to the injury report, which shows assaults on several parts of the body resulting in hematoma over scalp and left eye. The C.T. scan shows minimal extracranial subcutaneous soft tissue swelling in frontal and left parietal regions.

A co-accused standing on a better footing was denied anticipatory bail by this Court earlier in CRM (A) 2779 of 2025. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary and the fact that an accused placed on a better footing than the present petitioner was not denied anticipatory bail by this Court, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 3151 of 2025 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.)