Dismissed¶16

Rabin Man v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC9 Apr 2026CRM (A)/795/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM (A) 795 of 2026; Rabin Man; anticipatory bail rejected; Section 438 CrPC 1973; Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Tarakeswar PS Case No.38/2026 dated 26.01.2026; BNS 2023 Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(2)/109/351(2)/352/3(5); fight between brothers; assault with spade at construction site; victim head injuries requiring stitches; attempt aimed at neck; co-accused wife granted anticipatory broom attack contrast; incriminating materials in case diary; Jay Sengupta, J.; decided 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the submissions, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the petitioner, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ¶15

Rabin Man Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

09.04.2026 Sl. No.72

¶2

¶3

CRM (A) 795 of 2026

¶4

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tarakeswar PS Case No.38/2026 dated 26.01.2026 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/118(2)/109/351(2)/352/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of: Rabin Man

¶7

… petitioner

¶8

Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty, Mr. Debarnab Adhikary. …for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Anwar Hossain, Mr. Abhishek Verma.

¶10

..for the State.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. There was a fight between two brothers. The petitioner allegedly assaulted the victim with a construction equipment present at the construction site. A co-accused, being the wife of the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that while the co-accused attacked the victim with a broom, the petitioner attacked him with a spade. The victim received injuries on vital parts of the body, like head that required stitches for repair. In fact, it is alleged by the victim in his statement that the petitioner first assaulted the victim with a spade. He fell down. Thereafter, the petitioner took the spade again and tried to assault the victim aiming at his neck and when he tried to resist, his hand got injured.

¶13

Considering the above, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the

¶14

¶15

present petitioner, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.

¶16

The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

¶17

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.

¶18

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Rabin Man v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabin Man v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapan Mandal @ Tufani Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

MD Kalu Sk @ Nurul Sk @ Kayum Vs State of West Bengal

Md. Aslam @ Pilwa and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Raja Sarkar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Madhusudan Mukhopadhyay and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Tanushree Bera and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal