Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24940 (CAL)

HANIF MOHAMMAD v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM (A)/1512/2026 · 2026-06-24

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24/06/2026 D/L – 16 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 1512 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Harirampur P.S case no. 56 of 2023 dated 01/04/2023 under Sections 448/376/511/506/34 of the IPC. In the matter of: Hanif Mohamad ...Petitioner. Mr. Mazhar Hossain Chowdhury Mr. Sagufta Saba Yasmin …for the petitioner. Ms. Sabnam Mostafi Mr. Enamul Islam Mr. Asif Iqbal …for the de-facto complainant. Ms. Hasi Saha Mr. Sanjib Das …for the State. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the alleged victim. Earlier, the victim had lodged an FIR against the petitioner, the husband and the other in-laws alleging cruelty due to dowry demand. The petitioner was granted bail in that case. As the de-facto complainant could not make any headway there, the present case was falsely instituted. The petitioner is absolutely innocent. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the victim is still receiving threats from the accused. 2 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the medical examination report, the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate and the statements of other witnesses. As per the statement of the victim, as she had filed a maintenance case against her husband, the father-in-law forcibly came into her house and attempted to rape her. 5. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that there was a prior case where the petitioner was granted bail, although I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, his movement shall remain restricted for a limited period. 6. In the event of arrest, the petitioner 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 petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once a week till submission of report in final form. The petitioner shall stay outside the jurisdiction of Harirampur Police Station for two months from date except for meeting the I.O or attending the jurisdictional Court. 7. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 3 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)