IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 08.07.2026 Item No. 21 Ct. No. 5 C.R.M.(A) 450 of 2026 AN (ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 315 of 2026 dated 24.06.2026 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 109 / 115(2) / 123 / 126(2) / 351(2) / 49 / 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. In the matter of : Prabir Ray & anr. … Petitioners. Mr. Aniruddha Biswas Ms. Kanak Mishra Mr. Manoj Saha …for the Petitioners. Mr. Urgen Lama Mr. Atul Dong …for the State. Mr. Bibek Tarafdar …for de facto complainant 1. The petitioner is anticipating arrest in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 315 of 2026 dated 24.06.2026 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 109 / 115(2) / 123 / 126(2) / 351(2) / 49 / 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. 2. The petitioners are the parents of the principal accused persons. 2 3. Mr. Aniruddha Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioners has first argued that the present case falls under the category of a case having “special circumstances”, justifying direct filing of the anticipatory bail prayer before this Court, as an exception to the proposition laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Rasal C. and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728. 4. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant who is the father of the victim girl is a law clerk by profession. That entry of the petitioners within the premise of the District Court to move their application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, could have resulted into a great pandemonium and disturbance in law and order situation within the Court premises, at the instance of the de facto complainant, who has fair amount of control over the law clerks over there. 5. The argument advanced as above, appears to be cogent enough to find that the petitioners have “special circumstances” as enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Rasal C. (supra), as an exception to the general proposition as laid down therein, for direct filing of their application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, before this Court. Apart from the maintainability aspect of the case as above, it is further 3 been submitted that the petitioners had no direct role in commission the offence as alleged and none of them were even remotely related or present at the place of occurrence. 6. Learned advocates for the State as well as the de facto complainant have raised strong objection to the contentions as above advanced on behalf of the petitioners for the reason that sufficient materials against the petitioners are on record insofar as the materials are available in the case diary indicating a telephone call by the petitioners to the principal accused person to instigate him to administer poison to the victim girl. 7. Firstly, there is no call record collected as yet in support of such contention of the State or the de facto complainant. Secondly, the submissions as above or the materials, if at all present in the case diary, appears to be only untrustworthy for the inherent vagueness therein, insofar as both the petitioners cannot simultaneously make a phone call to a person at the same time. 8. So far as the specific role of the present petitioners are concerned, who are the parents of the principal accused person, I find one line mentioning general nature of allegations against them in the F.I.R. and nothing else in the materials in the case diary. 9. Considering all as above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation in connection with the 4 present case may not be necessary, however, they should cooperate with the investigation as and when necessary. 10. In view of the above, the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed with the following conditions. 11. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the petitioners 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 petitioners shall comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate with the investigation in all possible way. They shall not intimidate witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. 12. C.R.M.(A) 450 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)