22.04.2025 (D/L 1) Ct. No.1 (Naba) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRM (A) 146 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bhakti Nagar P.S. Case No. 983 of 2024 dated 21.10.2024 under Sections 80, 85, 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5288 of 2024. And In the matter of : Krishna Mandal @ Kistha Mandal … Petitioner Mr. Subham Ghosh, Mr. Mayank Roy ... for the petitioner Ms. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, ld. APP, Mr. Ujjwal Luksom, Ms. Namrata Das ... for the State 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. 2. The complainant is mother of the victim. She has alleged that the present petitioner (father-in-law of the victim), along with his son (Mridul Mandal), ever since marriage of the daughter have been abusing her physically and mentally and keeping her confined at home. There are other allegations also regarding the present petitioner including allegation that he is indulging in gambling at home and allowing gathering of outsiders in the house for such purpose. It is such 2 2 conduct which allegedly has driven the victim girl to commit suicide. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the father-in-law. He submits that the husband of the victim has since been enlarged on bail on 21.02.2025. It is further submitted that while granting bail the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri has taken note of the fact that during investigation and from the charge-sheet, no demand of dowry could be found. He claims bail on the ground of parity with Mridul Mandal. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the present case specific allegations and a role has been attributed to the father-in-law which is obvious from a bare perusal of the complaint. Material has surfaced during investigation based on which charge sheet has been submitted under Section 80 of B.N.S. The husband (Mridul Mandal) was granted regular bail and not privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the rival submissions, having regard to the nature of allegations against the present petitioner regarding mental and physical abuse, the fact that the petitioner is also facing charges containing presumption under Section 80 BNS, as charge-sheet 3 3 has been submitted under Section 80 BNS; and petitioner’s claim based on parity with Krishna Mandal, who has been allowed regular bail, I do not find that a case having been made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for the anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. The application being CRM (A) 146 of 2025 is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.)