IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 08.07.2026 Item No. 17 Ct. No. 5 C.R.M.(A) 444 of 2026 AN (PARTLY ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station Case No. 91 of 2026 dated 04.02.2026 under Sections 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 170 of 2026 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coochbehar. In the matter of : Smt. Purnima Dutta @ Purni Dutta & anr. … Petitioners. Mr. Hillol Saha Podder Mr. Somraj Paul …for the Petitioners. Ms. Ruchika Agarwala Mr. Roumyadip Saha …for the State. 1. The petitioner is anticipating arrest in connection with Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station Case No. 91 of 2026 dated 04.02.2026 under Sections 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 170 of 2026 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coochbehar. 2. The petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 3. Mr. Somraj Paul, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar dated 10th April, 2026 in which the learned Sessions Judge, Coochbehar has 2 released the principal accused person that is the husband of the victim on bail. 4. It is surprising to note that the learned Sessions Judge cited reasons for granting bail to the husband that statutory period of 60 days have been over during which the Police could not have been able to submit the charge sheet. That is however, without considering the materials on C.D. or the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, for which the learned Sessions Judge was duty bound and also empowered under the law to do. Expiry of the statutory period may undoubtedly give rise to a valuable right in favour of the accused to seek what is commonly known as “default bail”. Where the preayer for bail is considered on merit, the Court must independently evaluate the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation and other factors of relevancefor the larger interests of justice. A judicial order by the Sessions Judge granting bail must therefore reflect a holistic consideration of all relevant factors and should not only be a “default bail”. This amounts to not exercising power vested in him by law by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the principal accused person. Hence, the petitioners cannot successfully claim parity and favourable order for them in this case for the reasons as stated hereinabove. 3 5. So far as the materials available in the case diary is concerned, having found conspicuous relevant materials against the petitioner no. 2, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner no. 2. 6. Thus, anticipatory bail prayer of petitioner no. 2 is rejected. 7. However, in absence of such definite materials against petitioner no. 1, her prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed with the following conditions. 8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 1 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, Coochbehar. The petitioner no. 1 shall comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate with the investigation in all possible way. She shall not intimidate witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. 9. C.R.M.(A) 444 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) 4