10.11.2025 Court No.28 Item No.18 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 2880 of 2025 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Khanakul P.S. Case No.92 of 2025 dated 07.02.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of: Surajit Batabyal & Anr. ….Petitioners. Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya …for the petitioners Ms. Rituparna De Ghosh Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya ….for the State Mr. Soumya Dasgupta Mr. Sattwik Majumder Mr. Ritankar Das ….for the de facto complainant Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner no. 2 is a nephew of the petitioner no. 1. As against the petitioner no. 1, the allegation is only that he identified seller in a sale deed of 2018. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it is alleged that in 2022 he transferred a plot of land to his brother-in-law by a deed of gift although the land was allegedly a debottar property. It is denied that the land was a debottar property. Land record shows that the land was mutated in the name of the forefather’s of the petitioner no. 2. An RTI reply would show that there was nothing on record to show that the land was debottar property. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She relies on the case diary and submits 2 that a deed of 1916 has been found to show that the entire property in question was declared debottar. It appears that in 1955 in the land records two persons were shown as sebaits and the land was categorized as raiyatee. After the cases were started the 50 per cent of the property was recorded back as debottar property as a corrective measure by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the land was always debottar property and the petitioners must have been aware of the same. It appears that there is civil dispute over whether the land in question was debottar and whether in part. However, the petitioners cannot be held responsible if any wrong had been done in 1955 in recording the property in the name of two persons as raityee land. Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, 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 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 3 not threaten or intimidate witnesses and 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 copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for. (Jay Sengupta, J.)