← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/757/2025rejected

Sri Biplab@Bipul Barman v. The State Of West Bengal

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

21.11.2025 Item no.30 Court No.3 ss (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION , CRM (A) 757 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No.492 of 2025 dated 24.08.2025 under Section 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita corresponding to G.R. No.549 of 2025.

In the matter of : Sri Biplab @ Bipul Barman ... Petitioner.

Mrs. Matan Chakraborty ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Sagnik Sankar Sikdar ... for the State.

1.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties relates to family dispute. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner. The other co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. She seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 2.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence of assault, which resulted in grievous injury to the victim. The victim was hospitalized.

He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

3.

Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 4.

It appears from the injury report that the victim sustained lacerated injury in the scalp and cut injury on the upper lip being assaulted by sharp cutting weapon like knife as well as metal rod. The nature of injury has been noted as grievous. The victim had to be hospitalized for treatment of injury sustained by him. The victim has named this petitioner as his assailant. Considering the materials as above and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

5.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

6.

The application being CRM (A) 757 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)