21.08.2026 Item No. 22 Ct. No. 39 C.R.M.(A) 2015 of 2026 AN (ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 197 of 2026 dated 11.04.2026 under Sections 329(4) / 115(2) / 117(2) / 109(1) / 74 / 351(2) / 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 471 of 2026 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur. In the matter of : Manoranjan Haldar & anr. … Petitioners. Ms. Jeenia Rudra Ms. Sukanya Banerjee …for the Petitioners. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee Mr. Sanjib Das …for the State. 1. Learned advocate representing the State submits that there is an inadvertent typographical error in the order dated 14th August, 2026 in recording the name of the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners as well as the State. 2. In the said order, the name of Mr. Subrata Mukherjee and Mr. Sanjib Das be read as learned advocate representing the State in place and stead of Mr. Brajesh Jha and the name of Ms. Jeenia Rudra be read as learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in place and stead of Mr. Subrata Mukherjee and Mr. Sanjib Das. 3. Other portions of the order dated 14th August, 2026 remain unaltered. 4. This may be treated as a part of the order dated 14th August, 2026. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners and the de facto complainant are full-blood relatives. He further submits that seven accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioners on parity ground. 6. In spite of the notification by the Police Authorities, the de facto complainant did not turn up to contest the case. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the State produces the case diary, the memo of evidence and relies on the injury report and the statement of the witnesses and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, the case diary including the injury report and the statement of the witnesses, this Court finds that the injury is simple in nature and, therefore, this is a fit case for allowing the prayer of the petitioners’ anticipatory bail. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any necessity for custodial interrogation/detention of the 2 petitioners and, hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is considered and allowed. 10. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. In the event the petitioners fail to comply with the conditions as imposed by this Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to pray for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in accordance with law. 12. C.R.M.(A) 2015 of 2026 stands disposed of. 13. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 14. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 3 4