Dismissed

Asit Halder v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC12 May 2026CRM (A)/1291/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita. The High Court, while noting a prior rejection and a subsequent reduction in charges, held that the applicant's alleged role and incriminating materials made it an unfit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Asit Halder Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

12.05.2026 Court No.28 Item No.33 ssi

¶2

CRM (A) 1291 of 2026

¶3

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Malda Police Station Case No. 687 of 2025 dated 29.09.2025 under Sections 85/103 (1)/3(5) of the BNS subsequently charge sheet submitted under Section 85/108/3(5) of the BNS.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of: Asit Halder

¶6

Mr. Kazi M. Rahman Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya

¶7

…. Petitioner …for the petitioner …for the State

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. This is a second application for anticipatory bail. The first one was rejected by this Court on 06.03.2026 in CRM (A) 472 of 2026 when investigation was going on, inter alia , on a charge of Section 103 (1) of the BNS. However, now charge sheet has been submitted only under Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS. Earlier the parents in law, the sister in law and the brother in law of the victim were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 06.01.2026 in CRM (A) 4172 of 2025.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the post-mortem report and the statements of witnesses.

¶10

It appears that the question of grant of anticipatory bail to some other co-accused was taken into consideration by this Court while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail. The only difference was that at that time, the case was being investigated

¶11

¶12

under Section 103 (1) of the BNS, among others and now a charge sheet has been submitted not under Section 103, but under Section 108 of the BNS. However, it appears from the statements that the couple had been residing elsewhere for some time. There is an allegation that the present petitioner was torturing the victim/wife even at that other place. About three months prior to the incident, they had moved into the parent’s house of the present petitioner.

¶13

Considering the above, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the present petitioner, I do not consider this is to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶15

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

¶16

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Asit Halder v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asit Halder v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Laheri Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Dipu Ghosh @ Dipankar Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Sarbanu Bibi and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Asish Karan @ Asis Karan Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ranitra Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Petitioner No. 1 and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.