Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Binidini Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2025)

Home
Calcutta HC
2025
Binidini Barman and Anr. Vs the State of West BengalBinidini Barman and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Dismissed¶¶12

Binidini Barman and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC20 Nov 2025CRM(A)/623/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; Section 482 BNSS 2023 application dismissed; Sections 85/103/3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; complaint under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C. by father of deceased; 11-month delay in FIR lodgment explained in complaint; post mortem asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging; death within seven years of marriage; investigation in progress; Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025; G.R. Case No. 769 of 2025; Chief Judicial Magistrate Cooch Behar; Binodini Barman; High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench Jalpaiguri; Bivas Pattanayak, J.; decided 20.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Although there was a delay of almost 11 months between the death of the deceased and the complaint under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant disclosed the ground of delay in his complaint; hence the petitioners' argument on unexplained delay does not hold good.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 should be granted to the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, in connection with Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

Perusing the case diary and materials on record, and noting witness statements alleging the petitioners' involvement in the offence, the Judge, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

Although there was a delay of almost 11 months between the death of the deceased and the complaint under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant disclosed the ground of delay in his complaint; hence the petitioners' argument on unexplained delay does not hold good.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482 BNSS 2023 — application by mother-in-law and brother-in-law (petitioners) of a deceased woman in connection with Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) BNS, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 769 of 2025 pending before CJM, Cooch Behar — case initiated on a complaint lodged in court under S. 175(3) Cr.P.C. by the father of the deceased — death on 21.03.2024, complaint filed 21.02.2025, delay of almost 11 months — ground of delay disclosed in the complaint, so the petitioners' delay argument rejected — post mortem: death due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging; victim died within seven years of marriage — witness statements allege petitioners' involvement — considering the nature and gravity of the offence, anticipatory bail refused — C.R.M. (A) 623 of 2025 dismissed (Bivas Pattanayak, J., High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, 20.11.2025).

A

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

20.11.2025 4(DL) Ct. No.3 srm

(Rejected) C.R.M. (A) 623 of 2025

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Cooch Behar Kotwali P. S. Case No.384 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita corresponding to G.R. Case No.769 of 2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar.

In the matter of : Binodini Barman & Anr. … Petitioners. Mr. Sudip Guha, Mr. Sandip Guha Roy, Mr. Ananda Paul …for the Petitioners. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, PP-in-Charge Mr. Nilay Charaborty, APP Mr. Subhasish Misra …for the State. 1. State files status report which is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that there is unexplained delay of 11 months in lodgment of the FIR. The case has been initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged in court under Section 175(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the father of the deceased. Such delay makes the case of the prosecution is unacceptable. There is no such specific allegation against these petitioners who happen to be mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. He seeks for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.

Opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the delay has

2

been duly explained in the petition under Section 175(3) of the Cr.P.C. There are serious allegations against the petitioners of their involvement in the offence. The victim has died within seven years of marriage. The investigation is under progress. He seeks for dismissal of the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Perused the case diary and materials on record.

From the statement of the witnesses, it is found that there are allegations against the petitioners of their involvement in the alleged offence. As per the post mortem report, death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There cannot be any quarrel that the deceased died on 21^st March, 2024 and the petition under Section 175(3) of Cr.P.C. is filed on 21^st February, 2025. As such, there is a delay of almost 11 months. Be that as it may, the complainant in his complaint under Section 175(3) of Cr.P.C. has disclosed the ground of delay. Hence, the argument in this regard on behalf of petitioners does not hold good. Considering the aforesaid materials and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Thus, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

CRM (A) 623 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 should be granted to the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, in connection with Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025.¶¶6
The court held
Perusing the case diary and materials on record, and noting witness statements alleging the petitioners' involvement in the offence, the Judge, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.ratio¶¶11
2.
Whether the delay of about 11 months in lodgment of the FIR makes the prosecution case unacceptable.¶¶6
The court held
Although there was a delay of almost 11 months between the death of the deceased and the complaint under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant disclosed the ground of delay in his complaint; hence the petitioners' argument on unexplained delay does not hold good.ratio¶¶11

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023482¶¶4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita85/103/3(5)¶¶4
Cr.P.C.175(3)¶¶6

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Police case registered as Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 769 of 2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
Case initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged in court under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C. by the father of the deceased.¶¶6
Prior proceeding
Deceased died on 21 March 2024; complaint under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C. filed on 21 February 2025, i.e., a delay of almost 11 months in lodgment.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Post mortem report finding: death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Victim died within seven years of marriage.¶¶9
Prior proceeding
Investigation was under progress at the time the anticipatory bail application was considered.¶¶9

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Binodini Barman & Anr.¶¶5
Sudip Guha, Sandip Guha Roy, Ananda Paul
respondent
State¶¶5
Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Nilay Charaborty, Subhasish Misra

Coram

AI extract

Bivas Pattanayakauthor¶¶14

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Calcutta HC
Decided on: 20 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 20 Aug 2025
Case no.: CRM(A)/623/2025
CNR: WBCHCJ0042412025
Topic: Dowry and Cruelty
Bench: Bivas Pattanayak
Disposal: REJECTED
Case type: C.R.M. (A)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Bivas Pattanayak

Amiyo Basak @ Gadai Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.
19 Nov 2025
Biki Sah@Bikky Sah Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.
19 Nov 2025
Asraful Alam Vs the State of West Bengal
19 Nov 2025
Abiya Bibi Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.
20 Nov 2025
Salman Ansari Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.
20 Nov 2025
Mafidul Miah Vs the State of West Bengal
20 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Binidini Barman and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal, CRM(A)/623/2025 (CAL), decided on 20 November 2025.

The Calcutta High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita85/103/3(5)
Cr.P.C.175(3)

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Police case registered as Cooch Behar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 384 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 769 of 2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar.
Case initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged in court under Section 175(3) Cr.P.C. by the father of the deceased.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Bivas Pattanayak

Parties & counsel