Nabiyar Miah Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

Nabiyar Miah Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, release upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of equal amount (one of whom must be local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS 2023; petitioner to appear before the jurisdictional court on each date of hearing; not to intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; not to enter the jurisdiction of Sitalkuchi Police Station except on dates required for attending court; jurisdictional court may cancel bail for breach without further reference to this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, named in Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No.112 of 2026 under Sections 140(3), 64, 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023, should be granted anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Considering the attending facts and circumstances and the case diary, the Court held that the anticipatory bail application should be allowed.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of equal amount (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC corresponding to Section 482(2) BNSS 2023; he must appear before the jurisdictional court on each hearing date, must not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must not enter the jurisdiction of Sitalkuchi Police Station except on dates required for attending court.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the stated conditions, the learned jurisdictional court is entitled to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted - Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Shampa Sarkar, J.), CRM (A) No. 403 of 2026, decided 20.07.2026. Application under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS 2023 by Nabiyar Miah, named in Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No.112 of 2026 (dated 10.03.2026) under Sections 140(3), 64, 351(3), 3(5) BNS 2023. Petitioner contended the relationship with the married victim was consensual and the FIR did not substantiate the rape allegation; the State relied on the victim declining medical examination and her statement under Section 183 BNS. Considering the attending facts and circumstances and the case diary - the son present with the victim at the place of occurrence (a friend's house) and reference to a 'salishi' - the Court held the application should be allowed: release on arrest on a Rs.20,000/- bond with two sureties of equal amount (one local), subject to Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, appearance before the jurisdictional court on each hearing date, no intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence, and no entry into Sitalkuchi Police Station jurisdiction except for court attendance; breach entitles the jurisdictional court to cancel bail without further reference.

20.07.2026 Ct. No. 11 SL No.07 Cp Allowed

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CRM (A) No. 403 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, in connection with Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No.112 of 2026, dated 10.03.2026 under Sections 140(3), 64, 351 (3), 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023.

And

In the matter of: Nabiyar Miah

….Petitioner.

Mr. Sandip Guha Roy Mr. Gobinda Ghosh Mr. Atul Dong

…for the Petitioner.

… for the State.

Mr. Ananda Paul

…….for the de facto complainant.

The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in connection with Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No.112 of 2026, dated March 10, 2026. According to the learned for the petitioner, the victim was a married lady and she and the petitioner had a consensual relationship. The contents of the FIR would indicate that the allegation of rape was not substantiated. The victim has admitted that, after the incident took place the petitioner had dropped her off at her residence on his own motorcycle.

The learned advocate for the State submits that the victim declined medical examination. It is also stated that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS would indicate the seriousness of the allegation.

2

It appears from the FIR and the documents in the case diary that the son was present with the victim at the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is a friend’s house. Reference is also made to a ‘salishi’. Considering the attending facts and circumstances and the case diary, this court holds that the application should be allowed.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of equal amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on each date of hearing as may be fixed. The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdiction of the Sitalkuchi Police Station, except on the dates required for attending the court.

In case the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stated above, the learned jurisdictional court shall be entitled to cancel the bail without further reference to this court.

The application for anticipatory bail, thus, disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)