KOUSHIK BARMAN AND ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
CRM(A)/386/2026 · 2026-06-30
Rai Chattopadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25666 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25666 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 30.06.2026 Item No. 07 Ct. No. 5 C.R.M. (A) 386 of 2026 AN (REJECTED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No. 171 of 2026 dated 25.04.2026 under Sections 117(2) / 115(2) / 109 / 74 / 351(2) / 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 213 of 2026 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dinhata, Coochbehar.
In the matter of : Koushik Barman & ors. … Petitioner.
Mr. Abhishek Sarkar Ms. Debopriya Ghosh …for the Petitioners.
Mr. Uday Bhattacharjee Mr. Debabrata Rai …for the State.
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. is a belated one lodged after about 24 hours of the incident, without assigning any reason for such delay. He indicates to the other discrepancies cropped up in the investigation that the petitioners though have not been named in the F.I.R. subsequently, they have been brought in by the defacto complainant, in her statement made before the learned Magistrate. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore implication of the petitioners is afterthought and due to political vendetta.
2
2. Also regarding the nature of injury, it is submitted that there is either no injury or very minimal amount of injury not to warrant the petitioners’ custodial interrogation.
3. The submission on behalf of the petitioners regarding the injury is contradicted by the injury report as available in the C.D. It appears that the head injury with stitches, IVF and the injections are mentioned in the injury report indicating the seriousness of the injuries. Also that names of the petitioners have been noted therein.
4. At this stage, having perused the materials in case diary and the injury report in particular, the prayer for bail application is rejected.
5. C.R.M. (A) 386 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)