Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1044 (CAL)

NUR MOHAMMAD SK @ NUR MAHAMMAD SK AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/69/2026 · 2026-02-18

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

18/02/2026 D/L – 10 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 69 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Sagardighi P.S case no. 306 of 2025 dated 10/04/2025 under sections 85/109/3(5) of the BNS. In the matter of: Nur Mohammad Sk. @ Nur Mahammad Sk. & Ors. ...Petitioners. Md. Kutubuddin …for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Das Adhikary Mr. Yasir Ismail …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State is taken on record. 2. Further statement of the de-facto complainant/wife recorded before the learned Magistrate shows that she is leading her matrimonial life, she has two daughters and had filed the FIR in a fit of rage. 3. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that a charge-sheet has been submitted, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners who are the husband and the other in-laws of the de-facto complainant. 4. 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 further conditions that the petitioners shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioners 2 shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from date and regularly attend the jurisdictional Court. 5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)