IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri 08.07.2026 Item No. 8 Ct. No. 5 CRM(A)/379/2026 S.De In Re:- An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the matter of : FIROJA PRAMANIK AND ORS … Petitioners. Mr. Subhasish Misra Mr. Satyajit Paul Mr. Rounak Ghosh …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh …for the State. Mr. Koushik Kumar Kanu Ms. Tulip Saha … for the De facto complainant 1. Preliminary objection of state that the petitioner has directly come before this Court with their prayer for anticipatory bail which is in contravention of the Supreme Court's direction in the judgment of Mohammed Rasal C and Another Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2728, appears to be not sustainable in view of the fact that record reveals that the petitioners have moved their application before the learned Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has dealt with the same vide order dated 3.06.2026. 2 2. Perused the materials available on record and submissions made both by the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant. Perused the materials available in case diary. 3. It appears that there is long drawn rivalry between the parties and several cases have been filed by both the parties. The instant is the FIR in connection with the petitioner's application filed before the learned Magistrate under section 175(3) BNSS, being registered as Dinhata PS case No.230 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has indicated that previously on the basis of similar kind of allegations against the de facto complainant and his family members, the petitioners lodged FIR being Dinhata PS case No. 562 of 2025 dated 22.11.2025. 5. He has further indicated that since thereafter there has been several complaints lodged by the petitioners against the members of the family of the de facto complainant. In support he has relied on copies of those subsequent complaints. 6. It also transpires that a mass petition was submitted by the local people against the de facto complainant and his family members on the allegation of hooliganism in the locality, on 25.11.2025. 7. Par contra, Mr. Koushik Kumar Kanu, learned advocate for the de facto complainant has relied on copy of the FIR 3 lodged by his clients against the present petitioners and their family members being Dinhata PS case No.252 of 2026 dated 2.05.2026. 8. Amongst all these allegations and counter allegations and case and counter case between the parties, the High Court intervened to cancel the bail in favour of 5 of the concerned persons in CRM(M) 90 of 2026, vide order dated 20.4.2026. The said order, however, does not pertain to the FIR with which this Court is concerned in the present case. 9. Having kept in mind the long standing rivalry and criminal cases pending between the parties and having considered the materials in CD in the present case which has revealed about certain amount of injury having been suffered by the victim, though mentioned to be simple in nature, the Court is inclined to allow bail prayer of the petitioners with certain stringent condition. 10. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail is allowed with the following conditions. 11. 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, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata. The petitioner shall comply with the condition under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate 4 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. 12. Let not the present petitioners enter into the jurisdiction of the police station within which the de facto complainant permanently resides, excepting the date of visiting the I.O., till the date of submission of charge sheet in the instant case. 13. Let him also visit the Investigating Officer of the case once in every month till the submission of charge sheet. 14. C.R.M. (A) 379 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)