Amit Panja and Ors. Vs the State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

Amit Panja and Ors. Vs the State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail allowed to all petitioners: in the event of arrest, release on furnishing 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 Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS 2023 conditions, with further conditions to cooperate with investigation, not threaten or intimidate witnesses, and petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 to meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 should be granted to the petitioners in connection with Chatterjeehat P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, i.e., whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required.

Court's answer

Considering that the matter arises from a dispute regarding ownership/possession of a flat, that the allegations of sexual assault on the 17-year-old girl were not mentioned in the FIR lodged promptly after the incident, and that they were levelled only after passage of a considerable period of time (about 47 days after registration of the FIR), custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and anticipatory bail is granted.

Ratio / Principle

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, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC corresponding to Section 482(2) BNSS 2023, on further conditions that they cooperate with investigation, shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses, and petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 allowed (CRM (A) 573 of 2026, decided 06.03.2026) to five petitioners (Amit Panja & Ors.) in connection with Chatterjeehat P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025 dated 27.12.2025 under Sections 329(4)/126(2)/115(2)/74/3(5) BNS, 2023 and Section 8/12 POCSO Act, 2013. The case arose from a dispute over purchase/possession of a flat; although the FIR was lodged promptly after an altercation between the two families, the allegations of sexual assault on the de facto complainant's 17-year-old daughter were absent from the FIR and emerged only about 47 days later, with a prayer to add POCSO provisions; the petitioners had complied with notices under Section 35(3) BNSS. Holding custodial interrogation unnecessary, the judge granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to Section 438(2) CrPC/Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, cooperation with investigation, no threatening or intimidating of witnesses, and petitioner nos. 1-3 reporting to the I.O. once a fortnight till the final report. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

06.03.2026 Court No.28 Item No. 38 tbsr Allowed

CRM (A) 573 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chatterjeehat P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025 dated 27.12.2025 under Sections 329(4)/126(2)/115(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 8/12 of POCSO Act, 2013.

And

In the matter of: Amit Panja & Ors.

….Petitioners Mr. Soubhik Mitter Ms. Tanushree Kar Mr. Sagnik Bhattacharya ….for the petitioners

Ms. Anasuya Sinha, ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Paramanick ….for the State

Mr. Subhamay Bhattacharya Mr. Shankar Mukherjee Mr. S. Banerjee ….for the de facto complainant

Leave is granted to amend the cause title.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as

follows. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the petitioner nos. 1 and 5, while the petitioner no. 4 is their aunt. The petitioners had purchased a property in lieu of development of another property in Howrah. They also purchased another flat being flat no. 102 at the said building. The de facto complainant happens to be an advocate of the Howrah Court. He also wanted to purchase the said flat being flat no. 102. There was a dispute in this regard. On the particular day, there was an altercation that took place between the members of the two families. An FIR was lodged. The petitioners complied with the notices issue under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. After about 47

2

days from the registration of the FIR, allegations were levelled by the 17 year old daughter of the de facto complainant and a prayer was made to add certain provisions of the POCSO Act. The de facto complainant and his family members are now trying to give a false and more serious version of the alleged incident.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the flat in question was actually purchased by the de facto complainant. At the time of lodging of the FIR, the victim could not disclose certain other events that had taken place during the transactions.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She relies on the statements of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, the FIR and the other statements of witnesses and the injury reports.

Considering the above, the fact that there is a dispute regarding ownership/possession of a flat, the further fact that the allegations regarding sexual assault on the 17 year old girl was not mentioned in the FIR lodged promptly after the incident and that the same is being levelled after passage of a considerable period of time, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case and 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 the conditions as laid down

3

under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioners shall cooperate with investigation, shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses and petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)