Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33431 (CAL)

SALMA SARKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2049/2026 · 2026-08-19

Ajay Kumar Gupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

19.08.2026 Serial no. 11 [Srimanta] Ct. No. – 39 Partly Allowed CRM (A) 2049 of 2026 In re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with G. R. Case No. 5747/2025 arising out of Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 1302/2025 dated 08.12.2025 under Sections 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the Learned A.C.J.M., Chanchal, Malda -And- In the matter of : SALMA SARKAR … … Petitioner. Mr. Soupal Chatterjee, Ms. M. Chatterjee, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Advocate … …For the State. 1. The Memo of Evidence, filed on behalf of the State in Court today, is taken on record. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated. Actually, the husband of the de facto complainant had an extramarital affair with the present petitioner. When the de facto complainant came to know about the affair, she demanded a huge sum of money from him to give him a divorce and due to pressure, he committed suicide. The learned Advocate prays for anticipatory bail on any terms and conditions. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state, on the other hand, produces the case diary, pen drive and memo of evidence and relies upon the statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 2 4. Having heard the submission of the respective parties and on perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 and also having gone through the pen drive, this Court finds there is no direct material against the present petitioner. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. Considering the overall facts, this Court finds this is not a fit case for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, her prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. 5. Accordingly, this Court directs 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 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Harishchandrapur Police Station without prior permission of concerned Trial Court and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear every date as fixed by the trial court without any justifiable cause. In default, the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court, including cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court. 6. The application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 2049 of 2026 is, thus, allowed. 7. Case diary and pen drive be returned. 8. All concerned parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 9. Concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)