CRM (A)/1092/2026 of SK SOYAB ALAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

AD 277 April 9, 2026 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 1092 of 2026 An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 in connection with Chatterjeehat P.S. Case No. 44 of 202 6 dated 08.03.2026 under Sections 106(1)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Dr. Sk. Soyab Alam … petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyanka Sarkar Mr. Syed Murshid Alam Mr. Syed Chandan Hossain Ms. Resma Khatun Mr. Subrata Ghosh … for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Amanul Islam … for the State Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das Mr. Supriya Das … for the de facto complainant Copy of the certified copy of the order sheet filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that although the case was initially started under Section 106(1) of the BNS, a prayer was subsequently made to add Section 105 of the BNS , which is cognizable. However, such prayer has not yet been ac ceded to . T he investigation is presently going on under the earlier provision, which is bailable. In such event , the anticipatory bail application would not be maintainable at this stage. If 2 Section 105 of the BNS has already been added, then the matter may be considered on merits. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State submits, upon instruction and upon reference to the case diary, that the case at hand is presently proceeding only under Section s 106(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. However, such instructions were last given to the learned counsel on the 3rd of this month. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that Se ction 105 of the BNS has been added to the array of charges in this case. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of as not maintainable. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh application for anticipatory bail on the selfsame grounds, if a non -bailable charge i s added in this case in future. In the event of such addition of charge, a clear notice of ten days shall be given by the investigating officer to the present petitioner. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.) 3