Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/736/2025rejected

Chandan Adhikari v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-11-18Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 18.11.2025 23 (DL) AN (REJECTED) C.R.M. (A) 736 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Mekhliganj P.S. Case No. 188 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025 under Section 75(2)/78(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mekhliganj.

In the matter of : Chandan Adhikari ... Petitioner.

Mr. Debasish Mukherjee Ms. Sristi Sarkar ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, ld. APP Mr. Ujjwal Luksom Mr. Biswarup Roy ...for the State.

1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no case made out by the prosecution of putting up objectionable pictures of the wife of the complainant and/or threatening. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

2. On the contrary, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submits that the statement of the witnesses clearly indicates of overt act of the petitioner in taking objectionable pictures of the wife of the complainant.

There are also allegation threatening and advancing illicit proposal to the wife of the complainant. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

3. Perused the case diary and the materials on record.

4. From the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is found that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of taking objectionable pictures of the wife of the complainant and threatening her and also of giving illicit proposal to the wife of the complainant. In view of such materials and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Thus, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

6. The application being CRM(A) 736 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)