Ranjeet Kaur @ Ranjit Vs the State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

Ranjeet Kaur @ Ranjit Vs the State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023: in the event of arrest, release on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions of cooperation with the investigation and non-threat/non-intimidation of witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in Charu Market P.S. case no. 42 of 2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2)/308(2)/3(5) of the BNS, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. +1 more

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, the petitioner is to be released on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one of them local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions that she shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the materials in the case diary, the role ascribed to the petitioner and the fact that she cooperated with the investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

Key takeaways

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.ratio¶10
Observation that the Investigating Agency does not appear to have taken any step to secure the attendance of the principal accused in the case, who is the husband.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 allowed to the petitioner (Ranjeet Kaur @ Ranjit) in connection with Charu Market P.S. case no. 42 of 2025 dated 01.4.2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2)/308(2)/3(5) of the BNS. Holding that, in view of the case diary materials, the role ascribed to the petitioner and her cooperation with the investigation (she answered the Investigating Officer's e-mail intimation and also met him personally), custodial interrogation was not required. Release directed, in the event of arrest, on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions that the petitioner cooperate with the investigation and not threaten or intimidate witnesses. The Court observed that no step appeared to have been taken by the Investigating Agency to secure the attendance of the principal accused, who is the husband. (Jay Sengupta, J.; order dated 04/11/2025)

04/11/2025 D/L – 15 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 2392 of 2025

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Charu Market P.S. case no. 42 of 2025 dated 01.4.2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/351(2)/308(2)/3(5) of the BNS.

In the matter of: Ranjeet Kaur @ Ranjit ...Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Mondal Mr. Arijit Bhuiya Mr. Rony Mondal …for the petitioner. Ms. Sayanti Santra Ms. Debolina Das …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to a direction passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer had intimated the petitioner about the date on which he would like to examine the petitioner over e-mail. However, the petitioner did not only respond through e-mail, but also personally met the Investigating Officer. The prime accused is the husband of the alleged victim who is now in the USA.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and relies on the statements of the informant as well as the other witnesses and on the other documents present in the case diary. She submits that the husband was earlier married to a foreigner. This was not disclosed and huge sums of money were extorted.

2

It does not appear that the Investigating Agency has taken any step to secure the attendance of the principal accused in this case who is the husband.

Considering the materials available in the case diary, the role ascribed to the present petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner 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 petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses.

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.)