Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33360 (CAL)

LAKSHMIKANTA PALUI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2668/2026 · 2026-08-20

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

20.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.604. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 2668 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bishnupur Police Station case no. 174 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026 under Sections 85/115(2)/117(2)/109(2)/316(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhits, 2023. And In the matter of : Lakshmikanta Palui. ……Petitioner. Mr. Sambhunath De Mr. Manas Halder ......for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Mukherjee Mr. Chandra Gupta Kamal ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a matrimonial discord and dispute. Petitioner is the husband and has been foisted with the present criminal case. Learned advocate appearing for the State was confronted as to whether there are any injuries sustained by the victim. State has submitted that there is no injury report available in the Case Diary. Having considered the same and the other issues for which the case has been registered, I am of the view that although investigation can continue but custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner namely, Lakshmikanta Palui is allowed. As such, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and 2 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 the investigation of the case is still in progress, the petitioner, within a period of ten days from date, shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer of the case and thereafter, the Investigating Officer of the case, if required, would fix subsequent dates for presence of the petitioner for the sake of investigation. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 2668 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 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.)