← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/837/2025rejected

Amir Hossain v. The State Of West Bengal

2025-11-26Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

26.11.2025 Item no.42 Court No.3 ss (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION , CRM (A) 837 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 Kuchibari P.S. Case No.102/2025 dated 22.07.2025 under Section 115(2)/118(1)/118(2)/109/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.423/2025 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mekhliganj.

In the matter of : Amir Hossen ... Petitioner.

Ms. Srishti Sarker ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee Mr. Chattu Roy .....for the State.

1.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that on the date of incident there was free fight amongst the family members of the complainant and the petitioner. Both sides sustained injuries. The co-accused have been granted bail. There are no such specific allegations against this petitioner. She seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

2.

Learned Advocate for the State, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the victim sustained grievous injury in the said incident. There are specific

allegations against this petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

3.

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

Upon going through the FIR and other statements there are specific allegations against this petitioner of assaulting the victim by a sharp cutting weapon 'Kodal' on the head of the victim. The injury report shows that the victim sustained scalp injury over occipital region and fracture of lower end of radius (right). The nature of injury is grievous. 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 petitioners is rejected.

6.

The application being CRM (A) 837 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)