Petitioner No. 1 and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

Petitioner No. 1 and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners: on arrest, release on a 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, no threatening or intimidation of witnesses, and petitioner no. 1 meeting the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of the final report; presence of the Investigating Officer noted and dispensed with.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Bagnan P.S. Case no. 122 of 2026 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/3(5) of the BNS.

Court's answer

Considering the case-diary materials and the fact that the alleged victim refused medical examination, the court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required and that anticipatory bail could be granted.

Ratio / Principle

On arrest, the petitioners are to be released on bail on 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 cooperation with the investigation, abstention from threatening or intimidating witnesses, and petitioner no. 1 meeting the Investigating Officer once a fortnight until submission of the report in final form.

Key takeaways

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482, BNSS 2023 — Allowed. Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 by three petitioners (petitioner no. 1 and, as submitted by counsel, his parents as petitioner nos. 2 and 3) in Bagnan P.S. Case no. 122 of 2026 dated 05/03/2026 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/3(5) of the BNS, arising out of petitioner no. 1's relationship with the alleged victim. The de-facto complainant (stated to be the mother who lodged the FIR) raised no objection to bail. The learned Amicus assisting the State, relying on the case diary and witness statements, opposed the prayer, but pointed to the subsequent statement of the 17 years 6 months old victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, wherein she admitted eloping with petitioner no. 1 out of her own volition and stated there was no physical relationship between them; the victim also refused medical examination. Holding custodial interrogation unnecessary, the court allowed anticipatory bail: bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, conditions of cooperation with the investigation and non-intimidation of witnesses, and petitioner no. 1 to meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till the final report. (Jay Sengupta, J., 12/05/2026)

12/05/2026 D/L – 12 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 1110 of 2026

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Bagnan P.S case no. 122 of 2026 dated 05/03/2026 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/3(5) of the BNS.

In the matter of: XXX & Ors. ...Petitioners.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Prabir Kr. Das Mr. Sumit Routh

…for the petitioners.

Ms. Sayani Das

…for the de-facto complainant.

Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharyya

…for the Amicus.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 had a relationship with the alleged victim. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim due to some misunderstanding.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant submits that she would not have any objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners.

Learned Amicus assisting the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the statements of the witnesses. However, he also points to the subsequent statement of 17 years 6 months old victim girl recorded before the learned Magistrate, where she admitted that she had eloped with

2

the petitioner no. 1 out of her own volition and there was no physical relationship between the two. The alleged victim has also refused to undergo medical examination.

Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that medical examination was refused by the alleged victim, 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 no. 1 shall meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

The presence of the Investigating Officer is noted and is dispensed with.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)