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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, petitioners to be released on bail 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 conditions of cooperating with the investigation and not threatening or intimidating witnesses; petitioner no. 2 to meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight until filing of the final report; investigation to be conducted under the supervision of the concerned Superintendent of Police.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, stated to be the owners of the hospital, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Belda P.S. Case No. 435 of 2025 arising from an allegation of death due to negligence.

Court's answer

The record does not disclose compliance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, on prosecuting medical negligence; the State itself conceded there was no doctor's opinion showing the death was due to negligence of a doctor.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are only the owners of the hospital in question, which weighed in favour of granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail – S. 482 BNSS, 2023 – owners of a hospital seeking pre-arrest bail in Belda P.S. Case No. 435 of 2025 (ss. 271/125(a)/125(b)/106(1)/3(5) BNS; s. 105 BNS added) alleging death due to negligence of a doctor – Court noted the State's concession that no doctor's opinion attributed the death to negligence and that there was no appearance of compliance with the ratio in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 – petitioners being merely the owners of the hospital – anticipatory bail allowed on a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two local-linked sureties, conditions of cooperation and non-intimidation of witnesses, petitioner no. 2 to report to the IO fortnightly till final report – investigation to proceed under supervision of the concerned Superintendent of Police.

09/03/2026 D/L – 43 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 438 of 2026

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Belda P.S case no. 435 of 2025 dated 02/11/2025 under sections 271/125(a)/125(b)/106(1)/3(5) of the BNS added section 105 of the BNS.

In the matter of: Arpita Sau & Anr. ...Petitioners. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Parvej Anam Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Mr. Sourav Sardar …for the petitioners. Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Pallavi Priyandarshee …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that they are the owners of the hospital in question. Although the allegation is about death due to negligence of a doctor, there is no material to substantiate the same.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the medical report and the statements of witnesses. However, he submits that there is no opinion of any doctor available to show that the death was due to negligence of a doctor.

It does not appear that there is compliance of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 .

2

Moreover, the petitioners are only the owners of the hospital in question.

Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, 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. 2 shall meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

The investigating of the case be further conducted under the supervision of concerned Superintendent of Police.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)