15/06/2026 D/L – 64 Court No.28 S. Kundu Rejected C.R.M.(A) 1551 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Tehatta P.S case no. 306 of 2026 dated 16/04/2026 under section 109/115(2)/118(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS. In the matter of: Amitav Ojha @ Anutap Ojha ...Petitioner. Mr. Amanul Islam Mr. Sourav Mukherjee …for the petitioner. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Mr. Arnab Sau …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Some other co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statements of eye-witnesses, according to whom, the petitioner was the principal accused. He also relies on the injury report, which shows infliction of sharp cutting injury over a vital part of the body like head requiring stitches for repair. 3. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2 4. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

15/06/2026 D/L – 64 Court No.28 S. Kundu Rejected C.R.M.(A) 1551 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Tehatta P.S case no. 306 of 2026 dated 16/04/2026 under section 109/115(2)/118(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS. In the matter of: Amitav Ojha @ Anutap Ojha ...Petitioner. Mr. Amanul Islam Mr. Sourav Mukherjee …for the petitioner. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee Mr. Arnab Sau …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Some other co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statements of eye-witnesses, according to whom, the petitioner was the principal accused. He also relies on the injury report, which shows infliction of sharp cutting injury over a vital part of the body like head requiring stitches for repair. 3. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2 4. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)