18.08.2026 Serial no. 09 Court no.551 (MKP) CRM (A) 2386 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Mohanpur PS Case No. 127 of 2026 dated 21.06.2026 u/s 85/89/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS 2023. -And- In the matter of : Sourav Mondal Alias Sourov Mondal and Ors. … Petitioners Mr. Akash Ganguly, Mr. Nitankar Dutta Banik. … for the petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld.PP., Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Gautam Banerjee. … for the State-respondent(s) 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The petitioner no.1 was married to the defacto complainant, in the year 2025. 2 3. According to the case made out, the defacto complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by the present petitioners. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners further submits that prior to lodging of the first information report by the defacto complainant, petitioner no.1 had lodged several complaints with the local police station. He also refers to the content of the aforesaid complaint, which is annexed with the present petition. It is submitted that the parents of the defacto complainant visited the house of the petitioners and took away the defacto complainant without information to the present petitioners. 5. Petitioner no.1 is an employee with the West Bengal Police posted at Tamluk. Petitioner no.2, the father of the petitioner no.1 is serving in Air force and posted at Haryana. 6. It is submitted that no such incident as stated in the first information report ever occurred. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioners. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the State relies upon the materials in the case diary, he refers to a statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and submits with such statements clearly makes out a case under Section 85 of BNS. Although, certain 3 medical documents have been collected during investigation, but such documents do not established a case under Section 89 of the BNS. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for the anticipatory bail. 8. Heard the Learned advocate for the parties as well as the materials in the case diary. It transpires that the petitioners are alleged to have inflicted torture upon the defacto complainant after her marriage with petitioner no.1. So far as the materials in the case diary are concerned, I do not find any medical documents to justify an offence under Section 89 of the BNS at this stage. 9. There are allegations that the defacto complainant voluntarily left her matrimonial house with her parents without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials in the case diary collected so far, prayer of the anticipatory bail is allowed. 11. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, 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 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS and on further condition that petitioners 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. 12. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is Allowed. 13. CRM (A) 2386 of 2026 is disposed of. (Md.Shabbar Rashidi. J)