Alok Hazra Vs the State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

Alok Hazra Vs the State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners; in the event of arrest, release upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one of whom must be local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to further conditions that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses; the petitioner in CRM(A) 2117 of 2025 shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 should be granted to the petitioners in connection with Debra P.S. Case no. 274 of 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

The applications for anticipatory bail are allowed; in the event of arrest the petitioners are to be released on a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to cooperation with the investigation and non-intimidation of witnesses, and the petitioner in CRM(A) 2117 of 2025 is to meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of the final report.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the above and the delay caused in lodging of the complaint before the Magistrate leading to the registration of the FIR, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – S. 482 BNSS, 2023 – Applications by Alok Hazra (husband of the alleged victim) and Manik Hazra & Ors. (other in-laws) in connection with Debra P.S. Case no. 274 of 2025 dated 18.4.2025 under Sections 85/103(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS – Marriage in 2017; alleged victim stated to have committed suicide leaving a suicide note, copy annexed to the petition, original stated to have been taken away by the police earlier, and no original provided by the de-facto complainant nor seized by the police – FIR lodged pursuant to complaint of the victim's mother before a Magistrate about nine months after the occurrence – State opposed, relying on the case diary and the subsequent statement of the de-facto complainant – Court perused the case diary and UD Case documents – Held, in view of the delay in lodging the complaint leading to registration of the FIR, custodial interrogation of the petitioners not required; anticipatory bail allowed – Release on bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to cooperation with investigation and no threatening or intimidating of witnesses – Petitioner in CRM(A) 2117 of 2025 to meet the I.O. once a fortnight till final report – (Jay Sengupta, J.).

11/11/2025 D/L – 12 & 13 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 2117 of 2025

With

C.R.M.(A) 2192 of 2025

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Debra P.S. Case no. 274 of 2025 dated 18.4.2025 under Sections 85/103(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS.

In the matter of: Alok Hazra

...Petitioner.

In the matter of: Manik Hazra & Ors.

…Petitioners.

Ms. Jharna Biswas Ms. Susmita Biswas Choudhury

…for the petitioners.

Mr. Arindam Sen Mr. Amanul Islam

…for the State in CRM(A) 2117 of 2025. Ms. Anita Gaur Ms. Poulami Bose …for the State in CRM(A) 2192 of 2025. 1. Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner in CRM(A) 2117 of 2025 is the husband of the alleged victim and the petitioners in the other application are her other in-laws. The marriage between the couple took place in 2017. The victim developed a relationship with another person and as the relationship failed, she committed suicide. There was a suicide note left by the victim in this regard, a copy of which has been annexed with the petition. The original

2

was taken away by the police earlier. The present FIR was lodged pursuant to a complaint made by the victim’s mother before a Magistrate after about nine months from the date of occurrence.

Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Reliance has also placed on the subsequent statement of the de-facto complainant. No original copy of the alleged suicide note was provided by the de-facto complainant. Nor was seized by the police at any point.

Perused the case diary as well as the documents pertaining to the UD Case.

Considering the above and in view of the delay caused in lodging of the complaint before the Magistrate leading to the registration of the FIR, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to further conditions that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner in CRM(A) 2117

3

of 2025 shall meet the I.O once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)