Dismissed¶¶17

Suman Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC21 Nov 2025CRM (A)/2857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected in CRM (A) 2857 of 2025, decided 21.11.2025 by Jay Sengupta, J.: petitioner Suman Ghosh, husband of the de facto complainant, sought bail under S.438 CrPC/S.482 BNSS in Asansol Women PS Case No.37/2025 under BNS, 2023 sections 329(4)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/85/82(1)/303(2)/351(2)/3(5) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; allegations of dowry demand, torture, second marriage and assault; Court cited incriminating case-diary materials and the petitioner's alleged role, rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the petitioner, the Court did not consider this a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. ¶¶16

Suman Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

21.11.2025

Sl. No.14

CRM (A) 2857 of 2025

¶5

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 Asansol Women PS Case No.37/2025 dated 28.03.2025 under Sections 329(4)/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/85/82(1)/303(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of: Suman Ghosh … petitioner

¶8

Mr. Santanu Talukder, Mr. Sourav Mukherjee. …for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Mr. Asraf Mandal.

¶10

…for the State.

¶11

Mr. Supriyo Shasmal …for the de facto complainant.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the husband of the alleged victim. The allegations are absolutely commonplace. The marriage between the couple took place in 2016.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that in spite of having two minor children, the petitioner entered into an illicit relationship with another lady and got married with her. He has been torturing the de facto complainant/victim for dowry. On a particular day, he brutally assaulted the victim.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the statements of neighbours contained at page 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary and the injury report at page 39 of the case diary.

¶15

¶16

Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the present petitioner, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.

¶17

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 2857 of 2025 is, thus, rejected.

¶18

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.

¶19

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Suman Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Ghosh 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

Muddassir Ahmed Siddique Vs Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Anr.

Satyajit Mondal Vs Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Anr.

Lal Mohan Mitra Vs State of West Bengal

Sunil Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Saijuddin Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Blue Pearls Arch and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.