13.08.2026 Item no. 26. Court No.11. AB (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (A) 611 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No.506 of 2025 Dated 29.09.2025 under Sections 126(2)/103(1)/118(1)/109/61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 And In the matter of : Purnima Roy & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay Ms. Srishti Sarkar Ms. Bipasha Mrug ……for the Petitioners. Mr. Janardan Periwal, Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Mr. Rajdeep Das ……for the State. 1. The petitioners say that they are not the prime accused. They have no specific role to play in the alleged crime of murder. They pray for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned State Counsel points out from the material in the case diary that the petitioners have been absconding for a long time. Warrant of Arrest has been issued against them. Proclamation has also been issued against them. 3. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to allow this application. 4. CRM (A) 611 of 2026 stands dismissed. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 2

13.08.2026 Item no. 26. Court No.11. AB (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (A) 611 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No.506 of 2025 Dated 29.09.2025 under Sections 126(2)/103(1)/118(1)/109/61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 And In the matter of : Purnima Roy & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay Ms. Srishti Sarkar Ms. Bipasha Mrug ……for the Petitioners. Mr. Janardan Periwal, Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Mr. Rajdeep Das ……for the State. 1. The petitioners say that they are not the prime accused. They have no specific role to play in the alleged crime of murder. They pray for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned State Counsel points out from the material in the case diary that the petitioners have been absconding for a long time. Warrant of Arrest has been issued against them. Proclamation has also been issued against them. 3. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to allow this application. 4. CRM (A) 611 of 2026 stands dismissed. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 2