20.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.922 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Allowed C.R.M. (A) 1728 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Palashipara Police Station Case No. 601 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025 under Sections 109/115(2)/3(5)/85/89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with adding Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 And In Re : Mother-in-law of the Defacto Complainant and another ... Petitioners. Ms. Minoti Gomes, Ms. Sreetama Neogi ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah ... For the State. Ms. Sonali Das, Mr. Sk. Sahil Ahmed ... For the de facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the parents-in-law of the victim who have prayed for reconsideration and renewal of their prayer for anticipatory bail. Earlier their prayer for bail was rejected on 16.01.2026 in CRM(A) 4282 of 2025. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that de facto complainant and her 2 husband are staying together at the residence of the present petitioners. I have taken into account the statement of the victim and it has been candidly stated over there that the victim was married. So far as the issue relating to age of the victim is concerned, document which the State has relied upon reflects that at the time of the incident, the victim was 17 years 11 months. It has also been submitted that the next date has been fixed by the learned Special Court for report and appearance. Having considered the overall circumstances of the case and the present petitioners being the parents-in-law of the victim and also the fact that husband of the victim was arrested in connection with the instant case, I am of the opinion that custodial detention of the present petitioners in connection with the present case is unwarranted as charge-sheet has already been submitted. Considering the change of circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As charge-sheet has already been submitted, this order of anticipatory bail will remain in force for a period of six weeks from date. 3 Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 1728 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)