18.08.2026 Sl. No.18 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2164 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jhargram Women Police Station Case No.14 of 2026 dated 02.05.2026 under sections 70/115(2)/351(3) of BNS 2023 And In Re: Bhabani Shankar Pani @ Pani Babu … … Petitioner Allowed Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. S Das Mahapatra Ms. M Sinha Ms. Upasana Banerjee Mr. B Roy … … for the petitioner Ms. Shalu Gupta … … for the State 1. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that there was a delay of 49 days in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation has been offered. He submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail ought to be considered upon taking into account the attending circumstances. It is alleged in the FIR that, on a particular day, accused no. 1 had violated the victim, who used to work as a domestic helper at his flat. He submits that it is rather surprising that, on the very next day, the victim again went to the flat of accused no. 1, where, according to the prosecution case, the alleged incident was repeated and she was allegedly violated by accused no. 1 and his friend. 2. He further submits that the victim initially did not agree to undergo medical examination. However, subsequently, almost 20 days later, she underwent medical examination. The medical report, however, did not lend any support to the prosecution case. 2 He also submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted and, therefore, according to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. 3. Ms. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that, while dealing with an application for pre- arrest bail, the nature of the offence is required to be taken into account. The offence allegedly committed is under Section 70(1) of the BNS. He also submits that the victim was an illiterate lady belonging to a downtrodden section of society and, in such circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR is not uncommon. He further submits that the delay in lodging the FIR is not a factor to be considered and that merely because there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS cannot be extended to the accused person who allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 70(1) of the BNS He submits that such view shall receive support from the decision in case of Than Singh vs. Sate of UP & Ors. reported in 2025 AHC 192942 and Somnath Bhivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2024 BHC As 18371. He submits that the accused person remains an absconder and has not surrendered before the learned Court. Taking note of this fact, he submits that the present application be dismissed. 4. In reply, Mr. Chatterjee submits that when an accused person is pursuing his legal remedy by filing applications for anticipatory bail before different forums, he cannot be branded as an absconder. In support of such contention, he cites a decision of 3 the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 20786 (Akshay Jain vs. State). He also places reliance upon an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM 7506 of 2014 (Bidyut Kumar Roy vs. State), wherein, in a case registered under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, taking note of the delay in lodging the FIR, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner therein. 5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused CD and the materials on record, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. 6. In the present case, the alleged incident occurred on March 13, 2026 and the FIR was lodged on May 2, 2026 and, therefore, there was a delay of almost 49 days in lodging the FIR. Undisputedly, as noted earlier, initially the prosecutrix did not agree to undergo medical examination and she made her available for medical examination almost 22 days later. Such medical examination did not provide any corroborative support to the prosecution case. 7. In the present case, the charge-sheet has been submitted. However, liberty is reserved to the investigating authority to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary charge- sheet. In the given case, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and, in her statement, the victim reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR. 8. Therefore, the factors which have fallen for consideration in the present case are: (i) there was a delay of 49 days in lodging the FIR and delay has not been explained; (ii) the victim initially did 4 not agree to undergo medical examination and she underwent medical examination almost 20/22 days thereafter; the medical report did not provide any independent support to the prosecution case; and (iii) the allegation is that the victim was violated by a person at a particular place, but the same victim again went to the said person on the very next day when the alleged incident occurred and did not raise any hue and cry. There is a catena of decisions laying down the proposition of law that the gravity of the accusation is undoubtedly a relevant consideration while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. At the same time, the seriousness of the allegation cannot, by itself, be the sole determinant of the question whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the facts of the present case. It may be noted that, since the victim is stated to be about 32 years of age, the bar imposed under Section 482 of the BNSS in respect of a case instituted under Section 70(2) of the BNS would be attracted in the present case. 9. It is also an admitted position that anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely for the reason that there was a delay in lodging the FIR; however, delay in lodging FIR must be one of the factors to be considered. Therefore, not a single factor rather all these factors have to be considered cumulatively. 10. Needless to state that liberty to conduct further investigation or to file a supplementary charge-sheet may be reserved, but the mere fact that the provisions for further investigation or for filing a supplementary charge-sheet are kept open will not, by itself, justify curtailment of personal liberty. The prosecution has to 5 make out a case demonstrating the need for custodial detention and custodial interrogation of a person so as to curtail his personal liberty. Personal liberty is a very valuable right of every human being. Therefore, taking into consideration all the factors, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner, however, subject to certain conditions. 11. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), together with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once a week until further orders of this Court and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Jhargram without the prior permission of the Investigating Officer until further orders of this Court. 12. The application being CRM (A) 2164 of 2026 is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)