Allowed¶17

Amitosh Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC10 Jul 2025CRM (A)/1987/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM(A) 1987 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta, decided 10.07.2025 - anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS allowed for Amitosh Biswas in Tehatta PS Case No. 358/2025 (BNS 2023 ss.115(2)/117(2)/351(2)/329(3)/74/3(5) with POCSO ss.12/8); bond Rs.10,000/-, two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each; S.482(2) BNSS conditions and mandatory court appearance imposed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 482 BNSS; release on arrest upon bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions and appearance before the jurisdictional Court on every fixed date. ¶17

Amitosh Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

10.07.2025 SL No.40 Court No.32 S.Gayen

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

C.R.M.(A) 1987 of 2025

¶4

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 358 of 2025 dated 15.05.2025 under sections 115(2)/117(2)/351(2)/329(3)/74/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 12/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of: Amitosh Biswas

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Jaydeep Biswas Mr. Asraf Mandal Mr. Kaushik Ghosh Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee Mr. Soumyadip Saha Mr. Prabir Majumder Ms. Sangeeta Chakraborty

¶9

…for the Petitioner

¶10

…for the State

¶11

…for the de facto complainant

¶12

1. This instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there was a long standing dispute between two families and the family members of the petitioner were made accused in this case with all false allegations and moreover, the petitioner is not involved in any offence under the POCSO act.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail prayer and relied on the case diary particularly the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant has reminded this Court with respect to the factum of age of the victim.

¶17

After careful perusal of the case diary and particularly the involvement of the petitioner, I find no reason to disallow the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed .

¶19

I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount of Rs. 5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court.

¶20

Thus, The application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. (A) 1987 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Amitosh Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitosh Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Debarun Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Uttam Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Vishal Jaiswal and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ayan Purkait Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sanatan Biswas Vs State of West Bengal

Shyamal Prasad Vs State of West Bengal