31.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.16. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 1540 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tehatta Police Station case no. 260 of 2026 dated 04.04.2026 under Sections 74/109/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/329(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Fulchand Dafadar & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv, Mr. Soumyajit Majumder Mr. Asraf Mondal .....for the Petitioners. Mr. Jaydeep Biswas Mr. Priyankar Ganguly Mr. Koushik Ghosh ......for the De-facto complainant. Mr. Bhaskar Seth Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya ……for the State. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners at the inception submit that the petitioner no.2 namely, Lalchand Dafadar has been arrested during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, as such he has not pressed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, learned senior advocate draws the attention to the FIR which has been registered and the complicity to the relevant offence. It has also submitted that there is a counter case which has been initiated at the behest of the family member of the petitioners. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant submits that the lady was assaulted with a sharp cutting weapon i.e. hasua and also with iron rod. She was also admitted to the hospital, surprisingly the government doctor has stated that the injuries to be simple and in spite of repeatedly asking the investigating authorities, the statement of the victim as well as her husband under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded belatedly. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention to the injury report as also the names which are appearing in the injury report which do include the name of the present petitioners and others. I find that so far as the letter of complaint is concerned it refers to 7 accused persons who are involved in the assault. There is a specific accusation against petitioner no.2 for inflicting injuries with a sharp cutting weapon. The agony which has been expressed in this Court in respect of the injuries which has been suffered, so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, as per the prosecution case he was physically present at the spot and accusation reflect that he was involved in the assault. Having regard to the overall facts of the case and the investigation being already ended in a charge-sheet, so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, I am of the opinion that custodial detention may not be warranted in the background of the facts as stated above. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1 namely, Fulchand Dafadar is allowed. 3 As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner no.1 shall furnish bond subject to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/arresting officer of the case and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since, charge-sheet has already been submitted this order of anticipatory bail will remain in force for a period of six weeks. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 1540 of 2026 is allowed. Pending application (s), if any, is consequently disposed of. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)