Manbhola Ray and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

Manbhola Ray and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for anticipatory bail allowed and disposed of; petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest on a bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, weekly meeting with the Investigating Officer, and restriction against leaving Dinhata police station jurisdiction; breach entails automatic cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail (pre-arrest bail) under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023 in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 207 of 2026. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the offences allegedly committed over two years and the delay in the de facto complainant approaching the police (only in May 2026), custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary.

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 2023 corresponding to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key takeaways

Further conditions imposed: the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders and shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dinhata police station.ratio¶20
In case the petitioners fail to adhere to any of the stated conditions, the anticipatory bail stands automatically cancelled without further reference to the Court.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 207 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/324(4)/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act — offences allegedly spread over two years; de facto complainant approached police only in May 2026 — Court held custodial interrogation not necessary having regard to the nature of the offences — bail granted in the event of arrest on a bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions corresponding to Section 438(2) CrPC — further conditions: weekly meeting with the Investigating Officer and no departure from Dinhata police station jurisdiction — breach of conditions entails automatic cancellation of anticipatory bail without further reference to the Court — application allowed and disposed of (Shampa Sarkar, J.).

23.07.2026 Item No.7 Court No.11 (GB)

Calcutta High Court

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

CRM (A) 507 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 207 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/324(4)/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act.

And

In the matter of: Manbhola Ray & Ors.

….Petitioners.

Mr. Sudip Guha, Ms. Sayantani Das, Ms. Ankita Nag

…for the Petitioners.

Mr. Kallal Ghosh, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dev, Mr. Tapas Prasad

… for the State.

The petitioners pray for pre-arrest bail in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No.207 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/324(4)/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act.

The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary.

According to the petitioners, the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence as the first incident of theft, criminal trespass, etc., allegedly occurred on June 12, 2024. Although, there is an allegation that the petitioners kicked the pregnant daughter of the de facto complainant, no section with regard the grievous hurt or even simple injury has been added in the First Information Report.

Learned advocate for the State submits that kicking the pregnant lady is a serious offence.

2

It also appears that an allegation has been made with regard to possession of a firearm.

The complaint narrates that over two years the petitioners allegedly committed different kind of offences and the de facto complainant approached the police only in May 16, 2026. The nature of the offences are such that, custodial interrogation is not necessary.

Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The further condition is that the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dinhata police station.

In case the petitioners fail to adhere to any of the conditions as stated above, anticipatory bail stands automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 507 of 2026 is allowed and 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.)