Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32762 (CAL)

SIRAJUL @ JIARUL MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2095/2026 · 2026-08-20

Ajay Kumar Gupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

20.08.2026 Sl.No. 9 Ct. 39 Rejected Amalranjan In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRM (A) No. 2095 of 2026 In Re: An application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Bongaon Police Station Case No. 1192 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 under Sections 80/85/103(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act corresponding GR case no. 4148 of 2025. -And- In the matter of : Sirajul @ Jiarul Mondal … Petitioner Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee ….for the petitioner Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh ……..for the State 1. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the victim. He is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the husband as well as the mother-in-law were arrested and subsequently granted bail by the Sessions court. Chargesheet has already been submitted. He prays for anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the case diary as well as the memo of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner relying upon post mortem report and 2 the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS of the witness. 3. Memo of evidence, filed by the State, is taken on record. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the case diary produced by the State including the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the post-mortem report, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner as there are sufficient material against the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner is rejected. 6. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 7. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )