IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 07.07.2026 Item 15+16 Ct. No. 5 AN (ALLOWED) C.R.M.(A) 453 of 2026 In Re: C.R.M.(A) 453 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 211 of 2026 dated 06.04.2026 under Sections 329(4) / 224(2) / 115(2) / 118(2) / 109 / 74/ 76/ 123/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. In the matter of : Sri Ranjit Srivastava @ Ranjit Kumar Srivastava … Petitioner. Mr. Sayan De Mr. Rimik Chakraborty Ms. Susmita Ghosh Ms. Shreya Roy …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Mr. Gobinda Sahu Mr. Roumyadip Sahu …for the State. Mr. Bibek Tarafdar Mr. Satyajit Paul …for de facto complainant 1. The petitioner is anticipating arrest in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 211 of 2026 dated 06.04.2026 under Sections 329(4) / 224(2) / 115(2) / 118(2) / 109 / 74/ 76/ 123/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. 2 2. Mr. Sayan De, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he is only the outsider of the family who wanted to settle the family dispute between the members thereof. 3. Mr. De further addressed this Court with a list of previous criminal cases filed by the present de facto complainant or her sister. He further informs that the entire dispute arose in connection with a Title Suit being 130/2025 in which vide order 19th September, 2025 the de facto complainant has been refused injunction by the Court. However it is submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the dispute between the parties or the occurrence as alleged. 4. The C.D. is produced by the State. 5. On perusal of the materials in the case diary, particularly, the injury reports and the statements of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, the specific role of the present petitioner cannot be ascertained. 6. Considering the above and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, which is omnibus and general, this Court allows the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. The petitioner shall comply with 3 the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate with the investigation in all possible way. He shall not intimidate witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. 8. C.R.M.(A) 453 of 2026 stands disposed of. In Re: C.R.M.(A) 408 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 211 of 2026 dated 06.04.2026 under Sections 118(2) / 109 / 74/ 76/ 123/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to PTN No. WBJP02P002147/2026. In the matter of : Dr. Sk Samjad Ali @ Sheikh Samjad Ali … petitioner Mr. Hillol Saha Podder Ms. Mousumi Das …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das Mr. Uday Bhattacharjee Ms. Madhushri Dutta …for the State. Mr. Bibek Tarafdar Mr. Satyajit Paul …for de facto complainant 1. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No. 211 of 2026 dated 06.04.2026 under Sections 118(2) / 109 / 74/ 76/ 123/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to PTN No. WBJP02P002147/2026. 4 2. The petitioner is the husband of the sister of the de facto complainant. Against him, specific allegation of causing assault by sharp cutting knife as well as administration of poison to the de facto complainant etc. has been made. 3. State raises strong objection to the prayer of the petitioner on the basis of the injury report and the victim’s statement available in the case diary. 4. However, it is informed by the petitioner that there are several previous criminal cases filed by the present de facto complainant and her sister against all the family members including the present petitioner. It is also stated that the family dispute has arisen in connection with the property pursuant to the order of refusal of injunction in Title Suit No. 130 of 2025 dated 19th September, 2025. 5. On the basis of all as above, strong objection has been raised by the State so far as the anticipatory bail of the petitioner is concerned. However, before this Court, contradictory documents are available. 6. A declaration of the Superintendent, Malda Correctional Home dated 10th April, 2026 is annexed herewith, which shows that the petitioner has been on duty from 4th April, 2026 to 6th April, 2026 at Malda Correctional Home as an attending doctor. This indicates that on the date of the occurrence of the alleged offence, petitioner was staying positively within the 2 kms. radius of the said 5 Correctional Home, as per the norms of his service. To this effect, I do not find any investigation to have been made as yet, as to whether the petitioner actually discharged duty on the date of occurrence in the Correctional Home or not. 7. Therefore, on the basis of the declaration made by the Superintendent, Malda Correctional Home, it is, prima facie found that the petitioner may not have been present at the place of incident on the particular date and time. Further that investigation in the instant case has been concluded. 8. Considering all as above, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. However, considering also the nature of the allegations as alleged against the petitioner, some stringent condition is imposed while releasing the petitioner on bail. 9. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate with the investigation in all possible way. He shall not intimidate witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. 6 10. Let the petitioner not enter the jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station where the de facto complainant permanently resides excepting if called for by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation in the instant case or appearing before the trial Court, till the date of evidence of the de facto complainant is completed in the learned trial court. 11. C.R.M.(A) 408 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)