19.06.2026 Court No.28 Item No.23 tbsr Reject CRM (A) 1442 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Memari P.S. Case No. 243 of 2026 dated 31.03.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Sk. Nabiul @ Sk. Nobiul & Ors. ….Petitioners. Ms. Anasuya Sinha Ms. Surabhi Banerjee …for the petitioners. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, ld. APP Ms. Tanusree Kar ….for the State. Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. There was a fight between two groups of villagers. There are case and counter case, the first case having been instituted on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned APP representing the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. In all, six persons were injured by the petitioners. All of the petitioners assaulted the victims with arms, resulting in injuries on vital parts of the body, including the head, that required stitches for repair. Incidentally, the accused in the counter case were also denied the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. 2 Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

19.06.2026 Court No.28 Item No.23 tbsr Reject CRM (A) 1442 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Memari P.S. Case No. 243 of 2026 dated 31.03.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Sk. Nabiul @ Sk. Nobiul & Ors. ….Petitioners. Ms. Anasuya Sinha Ms. Surabhi Banerjee …for the petitioners. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, ld. APP Ms. Tanusree Kar ….for the State. Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. There was a fight between two groups of villagers. There are case and counter case, the first case having been instituted on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned APP representing the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. In all, six persons were injured by the petitioners. All of the petitioners assaulted the victims with arms, resulting in injuries on vital parts of the body, including the head, that required stitches for repair. Incidentally, the accused in the counter case were also denied the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. 2 Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)