Dismissed

Pathik Mallick v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC21 Aug 2026CRM (A)/2442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (old) referencing BNS 2023, finding it not maintainable under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 despite the absence of a public viewing in the alleged incident.

What did the court decide?

Application (C.R.M. (A) 2442 of 2026) dismissed as not maintainable under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Pathik Mallick Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

21.08.2026

¶2

DL-5

¶3

Court No.551 [Bench ID- 266058 ] (AD)

¶4

(Dismissed as not maintainable)

¶5

In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

¶6

Appellate Side

¶7

C.R.M. (A) 2442 of 2026

¶8

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 409 of 2026 dated 08.07.2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r )/3(1)(s)/2(v)(a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. G.R. No.59 2026 pending before the Ld. District 1^st Additional Court, Paschim Medinipur.

¶9

And

¶10

In the matter of: Pathik Mallick

¶11

….petitioner

¶12

Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Viraj Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate

¶13

…for the petitioner

¶14

Mr. Brajesh Jha, Advocate Ms. Sreshtha Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Sanjana Jha, Advocate

¶15

… for the State

¶16

Mr. Sanjib Bandhopadhyay, Advocate

¶17

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mondal, Advocate

¶18

… for the de facto complainant

¶19

Memo of evidence filed in Court be taken on record.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Advocate appearing for the State, it transpires that the instant case has also been initiated under Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/2(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶22

¶23

¶24

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, although, submits that the alleged incident of abusing the de facto complainant in the name of his caste has not been perpetrated in public viewing.

¶25

However, on perusal of the materials in the case diary, I find the things otherwise.

¶26

In such circumstances, in terms of provisions of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the instant application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶27

C.R.M. (A) 2442 of 2026 is dismissed as not maintainable .

¶28

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

¶29

ABHIJIT Digitally signed by ABHIJIT DAS DAS Date: 2026.08.21 17:18:22 +05'30'

Pathik Mallick v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathik Mallick v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases