AD 39 September 9, 2025 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 1393 of 2025 Allowed An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Digha P.S. Case No.08 of 2025 dated 16.01.2025 under Sections 64(2)(f)/64(2)(j)/64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Mohammad Shahid … petitioner Mr. Kausik Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniket Mitra Mr. Md. Kalam … for the petitioner Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Suchismita Dutta … for the State Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Hasiful Islam Ms. Afreen Begum … for the de facto complainant Report filed by the State in Court is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an affair between the petitioner and the alleged victim who were consenting adults. They went to different places. Reliance is placed on some photographs that were shown to have been clicked by the alleged victim herself. Even after the incident, there were WhatsApp chats between the private parties showing a different kind of relationship than the adverse one depicted in the FIR. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner returned from Saudi Arabia and cooperated with the investigation. 2 Learned counsel for the de facto complainant deprecates the conduct of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner fled away to Saudi Arabia, although at the first instance, the petitioner had mentioned that Dubai was the relevant place. He also points to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench about ways to apprehend the petitioner. In the month of May, 2025 there were threats given by the petitioner over phone. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that pursuant to a direction passed by this Court, the petitioner came back from Saudi Arabia and met the investigating officer. Necessary examination was done, including medico legal examination. Certain samples have been sent to FSL for comparison with the vaginal swab of the alleged victim lady. A DNA profiling could be done for the accused. Considering the materials available in the case diary and the petitioner’s stand that there was a relationship between the two consenting adults as evident from photographs and WhatsApp chats and the fact that pursuant to a direction passed by this Court, the petitioner came back from Saudi Arabia, met the investigating officer and submitted himself to necessary examination, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3 In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) 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 under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on the further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, shall respond to further queries of the investigating officer, if any, through video conference and if required shall meet the investigating officer and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)