The State of West Bengal Vs Nantu Mandal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of West Bengal Vs Nantu Mandal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted on either prayer. CRAN 2 of 2025, CRAN 3 of 2025 and CRAN 4 of 2025 in CRM (A) 331 of 2025 (relaxation of conditions of anticipatory bail) were disposed of, the petitioners being left to seek relaxation of bail conditions before the appropriate forum; the State's application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, CRM (M) 194 of 2025, was dismissed as no longer maintainable, with liberty reserved to the State to approach the Court having determination for cancellation of bail if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the connected applications CRAN 2, CRAN 3 and CRAN 4 of 2025 in CRM (A) 331 of 2025, praying for relaxation of the conditions of anticipatory bail, can be entertained after the accused persons have surrendered and obtained regular bail. +1 more

Court's answer

Prayer for anticipatory bail exists only if there is apprehension; once regular bail is granted, the issue of apprehension does not exist any further, and any condition imposed is deemed to be a condition of bail; applicants aggrieved by such conditions must prefer their prayer for relaxation before the appropriate forum having determination for relaxation of condition of bail.

Ratio / Principle

Since the accused persons have surrendered and obtained bail, the State, if aggrieved by any order relating to the liberty of the petitioner (including for supervening circumstances), is at liberty to approach the Court having determination for cancellation of bail.

Key takeaways

An application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is no more maintainable in view of the changed circumstances, namely that the accused persons have surrendered and obtained regular bail.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - relaxation of conditions and cancellation - maintainability after surrender and grant of regular bail. Before the High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction), Tirthankar Ghosh, J., the connected applications CRAN 2, CRAN 3 and CRAN 4 of 2025 in CRM (A) 331 of 2025 sought relaxation of the conditions of anticipatory bail, while the State moved CRM (M) 194 of 2025 for cancellation of anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the accused persons had surrendered and obtained regular bail from the jurisdictional Court. Holding that a prayer for anticipatory bail exists only if there is apprehension, and that once regular bail is granted the issue of apprehension does not survive, the Court deemed any imposed condition to be a condition of bail and directed aggrieved applicants to the appropriate forum for relaxation of bail conditions, disposing of CRAN 2, CRAN 3 and CRAN 4 of 2025. Holding further that an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was no more maintainable in view of the changed circumstances, the Court dismissed CRM (M) 194 of 2025, leaving the State at liberty to approach the Court having determination for cancellation of bail if aggrieved by any order relating to the petitioner's liberty, including for supervening circumstances. Decision dated 09.01.2026.

09.01.2026 Item no. 34-35. Court No.3. Rakib

In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

CRM (A) 331 of 2025 With

CRAN 2 of 2025 CRAN 3 of 2025 CRAN 4 of 2025

In the matter of : Mantu Mondal & Ors.

With

CRM (M) 194 of 2025

In the matter of : The State of West Bengal.

Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik

Mr. Subham Kumar

Ms. Sayantani Das

Mr. Priti Das

……for the applicant/petitioner (s) in CRAN 2 & CRAN 3 [CRM (A) 331 of 2015] and O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 in CRM (A) 194 of 2025.

Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Hillol Saha Podder

……for the applicant/petitioner (s) in CRAN 4 [CRM (A) 331 of 2015] and O.P. No. 3 in CRM (A) 194 of 2025.

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Dr. Arjun Chowdhury

……for the State/for the petitioner in CRM (M) 194 of 2025.

There are two applications being CRM (A) 331 of 2025

wherein connected applications have been taken out for relaxing the conditions of anticipatory bail.

Another application being CRM (M) 194 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

2

It has been submitted on behalf of the

petitioners/applicants in CRM (A) 331 of 2025 that the accused persons have surrendered and obtained regular bail from the jurisdictional Court concerned.

Having considered the fact that prayer for anticipatory bail exists only if there is apprehension and if the regular bail is granted the issue relating to apprehension do not exist any further. If any condition has been imposed the said condition would be deemed to be a condition of bail. As such if the petitioners/applicants in CRM (A) 331 of 2025 are aggrieved they would prefer before the appropriate forum having determination for relaxation of condition of bail.

Accordingly, the applications being CRAN 2 of 2025; CRAN 3 of 2025 and CRAN 4 of 2025 in CRM (A) 331 of 2025 are disposed of.

In CRM (M) 194 of 2024, I hold that since the accused persons have surrendered and obtained bail. If the State is aggrieved by any order which relate to the liberty of the petitioner which may be for supervening circumstances the applicants/State would be at liberty to approach the Court having determination for cancellation of bail.

An application for cancellation for anticipatory bail is no more maintainable in view of the changed circumstances.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 194 of 2025 is dismissed.

3

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)