Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32538 (CAL)

GOLAM MURTUJA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2495/2026 · 2026-08-24

Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.08.2026 Court No.551 Item No.20 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 2495 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kumarganj P.S. Case No. 140 of 2026 dated 05.05.2026 under Sections 85/117(2)/109/351(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of: GOLAM MURTUJA ….Petitioner. Mr. Habibur Rahaman Mr. Archisman Singh Mr. M. Rahaman …for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sharma Mr. Karan Dudhwewala …..for the State. Ms. Busra Khatun Md. Kashif Alam ….for the de facto complainant. 1. Memo of evidence filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is the fourth husband of the de facto complainant. He further submits that the de facto complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints against her husband for physical and mental torture and other allegations. He also submits that the de facto complainant and her relatives assaulted the petitioner for which a separate case was started against the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant was arrested in connection with such case and was in custody. He also submits that nothing has been done by the present petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned advocate has also submitted that the petitioner happens to be a 2 government employee and as such there is no chance of his absconsion. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State refers to the statement of the de facto complainant as well as the statement of other witnesses recorded under Section 183 of BNSS as well as Section 180 of BNSS. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant submits that the petitioner is the second husband of the de facto complainant. She also submits that the de facto complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner. She also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the State and on going through the materials in the case diary, it appears that as per the case made out in the First Information Report, after marriage of the de facto complainant with the petitioner, the de facto complainant came to know that the petitioner was already married to someone else prior to his marriage with the present petitioner. On April 8, 2026, the de facto complainant was informed that the victim was hospitalized for the assault perpetrated by the present petitioner. 6. I have gone through the materials in the case diary. The injury report collected so far in course of investigation does not record 3 any grievous injury justifying prosecution under Section 109 of the BNS. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the materials in the case diary, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner is allowed. 8. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be 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 BNSS and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight till the conclusion of investigation and on condition that the petitioners shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioners in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court. 9. CRM (A) 2495 of 2026 is disposed of. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)