Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/743/2025rejected

Rakesh Barman v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-11-21Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 21.11.2025 Item No. 21 (DL) AN (REJECTED) C.R.M. (A) 743 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 359 of 2024 dated 14.06.2024 under Section 406/465/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with G.R. (1) case no. 454 of 2024.

In the matter of : Rakesh Barman ... Petitioner.

Mr. Hillol Saha Podder ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Ms. Namrata Das Mr. Dhiman Sil ...for the State.

1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is of issuing Sim Card in the name of one Biswajit Barman who as per the prosecution denied to have been issued with such Sim Card. There is no criminality in the activity of the petitioner. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

2. On the contrary, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned advocate for the State submits that upon a direction issued by the West Bengal Cyber Crime Branch an enquiry was conducted. During such enquiry, it has come to fore that several agents in the District of

Coochbehar including the petitioner are involved in issuing fake Sim Cards which are being used for other offences. The investigation is still under process. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

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

4. From the list annexed to the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Coochbehar dated 7th June, 2024, it is found that this petitioner has issued several Sim Cards. The said Biswajit Barman in whose name the Sim Card having Mobile No. 6294531912 has been issued on being contacted, stated that no such Sim Card has been issued in his name. In view of the above and considering the nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

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

6. The application being CRM(A) 743 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)