Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34519 (CAL)

DIPANKAR ROY v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/282/2026 · 2026-08-19

Apurba Sinha Ray

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

20 19.08.2026 Court No.09. (S.Mandi) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRM(M)/282/2026 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dhupguri Police Station Case No.105 of 2026 dated 09-04-2026 under Sections 80/85/61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. - And - In the matter of: - DIPANKAR ROY ..…petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Subham Kumar, Adv. Ms. Jasmin Haque, Adv. …for the petitioner. Ms. Panchali Deb Sikder (Nag), Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Kallal Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Barman, Adv. ….for the State 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 103 days and he has further submitted that the investigation is complete. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Neither he nor his parents compelled the victim to consume poison. As the investigation is complete, he may be enlarged on bail on any conditions. 2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. According to her, there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the present petitioner. There is no reason for a lady to consume poison within four and half years of marriage and, further, when 2 she had a child of 2 ½ years. The torture was of such a magnitude that she was compelled to consume the poison. 3. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that the parents-in-law of the victim have been enlarged on anticipatory bail. The investigation of this case is complete. The statements of the local witnesses show that the victim herself consumed poison and there was no statement showing that the present petitioner compelled the victim to consume poison. However, in view of the fact that the investigation is complete, there is no need for further custodial detention of the present petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail is allowed on the following conditions:- a) The petitioner, namely, Dipankar Roy, shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. b) The petitioner shall meet the I/C, Dhupguri P.S. once in a week, until further orders. c) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and/or as and when to be directed by the Court. d) The petitioner shall not intimidate or threaten the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit any cognizable offence in any manner whatsoever. 3 e) The petitioner shall remain within the geographical limits of the District Jalpaiguri, until further orders. 5. In the event, the petitioner fail to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law. 6. The application for bail is, thus, allowed. 7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)