Md. Sariful Molla Vs State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2026)

Md. Sariful Molla Vs State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest: release on bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS conditions and further conditions that the petitioner cooperate with the investigation, not threaten/intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, and meet the Investigating Officer once a week till submission of the final report.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner (husband of the alleged victim) in connection with Hatishala PS Case No.180/2025 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 85/109/316(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the materials in the case diary, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions under Section 438 CrPC corresponding to Section 482 BNSS.ratio¶16
Further conditions imposed: the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.ratio¶16
The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once a week till submission of report in final form.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 BNSS, 2023) granted to Md. Sariful Molla, husband of the alleged victim, in connection with Hatishala PS Case No.180/2025 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 85/109/316(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Petitioner contended the marriage was about two years old, all persons at the in-law's place were arraigned, streedhan articles had been returned, and reconciliation attempts failed; the State relied on witness statements, noted partial return of streedhan and absence of any injury report in the case diary. Holding (Jay Sengupta, J.): custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required considering the case-diary materials. Bail ordered in the event of arrest on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS conditions and further conditions of cooperation with investigation, abstention from threatening or intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, and weekly meetings with the Investigating Officer until submission of the final report. The de facto complainant did not appear despite service. Application disposed of.

05.05.2026 Sl. No.98 Ct. 28 NB

C.R.M (A) 811 of 2026

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hatishala PS Case No.180/2025 dated 24.10.2025 under Sections 85/109/316(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

And

In the matter of: Md. Sariful Molla … petitioner

Mr. Sarwar Jahan, Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal, Mr. Masud Hasan, Mr. Archishman Singh. …for the petitioner.

Mr. Prasun Kr. Datta, Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar. …for the State.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is

taken on record.

Despite service, no one appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the husband of the alleged victim. The marriage took place about two years ago. All and sundry at the in-law’s place have been arraigned as accused. Streedhan articles have already been returned. The petitioner has tried to reconcile and settle the matter over phone with the wife. But, she is not willing.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the statements of witnesses and the other materials on record. He

2

submits that some streedhan articles were returned. However, there is no injury report available in the case diary.

Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and on further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once a week till submission of report in final form.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

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.)