Pratima Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

Pratima Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners Pratima Sarkar and Rajesh Kumar Sarkar; in the event of arrest they are to furnish bonds subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer and the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and/or Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023; petitioner no.2 to meet the investigating officer within 10 days and remain available thereafter; investigation to continue.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, partners and family members running the business for 35 years and arraigned in Dhantala Police Station Case No. 363 of 2026 under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/61(2) BNS read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) ECA, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

On inspection of the Case Diary and on confronting the learned advocate for the State, the Court could not find materials substantiating the oral contention regarding movement of materials to the fair price shop of the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

As the materials substantiating the accusations are presently wanting, custodial detention of the petitioners may not be warranted; the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the petitioners Pratima Sarkar and Rajesh Kumar Sarkar shall furnish bonds subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer and subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and/or Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.ratio¶19
The investigation of the case shall continue notwithstanding the grant of anticipatory bail.ratio¶15
Petitioner no.2 shall meet the investigating officer within 10 days and make himself available subsequently as and when called for by the investigating officer.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - granted. Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dhantala Police Station Case No. 363 of 2026 dated 23.05.2026 under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Case instituted on a report by the Sub-Divisional Controller, F & S, Ranaghat; two raids by the investigating agency yielded no seizure, alleged non-cooperation by petitioners; petitioners' licence suspended and proceedings initiated. On inspection of the Case Diary the Court could not find materials substantiating the alleged movement of materials to the petitioners' fair price shop; materials substantiating the accusations being wanting, custodial detention not warranted. Bail allowed: bonds in the event of arrest subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) BNSS conditions; petitioner no.2 to meet the investigating officer within 10 days and remain available; investigation to continue. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

23.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.673. Rakib (Allowed)

CRM (A) 2026 of 2026

In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dhantala Police Station case no. 363 of 2026 dated 23.05.2026 under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

And

In the matter of : Pratima Sarkar & Anr. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Neil Basu Mr. Subhrajit Dey Ms. Oindrilla Sarkar Ms. Dishani Kanjilal .....for the Petitioners. Mr. Ronojoy Chatterjee Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar

……Petitioners. .....for the Petitioners. ……for the State.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to correct the Cause Title.

The present case has been instituted as submitted on behalf of the State on the basis of a report prepared by the Sub-Divisional Controller, F & S, Ranaghat.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are partners as well as family members who have been carrying on such business for a period of 35 years and have been implicated in the present case as petitioner no.2 is an elected representative.

2

Learned advocate appearing for the State on the other hand opposes such contention and submits that the case was instituted under Section 316(5) of the BNSS along with other sections. The case was registered on the basis of the report of a government servant, two raids were conducted by the investigating agency and nothing could be seized as there were non-cooperation from the present petitioners.

It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners license of the present petitioners have been suspended and proceedings have been initiated.

This Court on inspection of the Case Diary and on confronting the learned advocate for the State could not lay down it hands on materials which would substantiate the oral contentions relating to the movement of the materials to the fair price shop of the present petitioners.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that notices under Section 94 of the BNSS have been served upon the Sub-Divisional Controller/de-facto complainant.

So far as the investigation of the case is concerned, let the same continue.

However, as presently the materials substantiating the accusations are wanting, I am of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioners may not be warranted in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed.

3

As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners

namely, Pratima Sarkar and Rajesh Kumar Sarkar shall furnish bonds subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer of the case and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Additionally, petitioner no.2 shall meet with the investigating officer of the case within a period of 10 days and make himself available subsequently as and when called for by the investigating officer of the case.

Accordingly, CRM (A) 2026 of 2026 is allowed.

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.)