17.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.268 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Allowed C.R.M. (A) 1846 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Rabindranagar Police Station Case No. 119 of 2026 dated 11.05.2026 under Sections 64/308(2)/ 351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Imran Halder ... Petitioner. Md. Wasim Akram, Mr. Anwar Hossain, Mr. M.S. Islam ... For the Petitioner. Ms. Priti Kar Bagchi ... For the State. Ms. Reshmi Khatun, Mr. Samir Mishra, Md. Shakil ... For the de facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a consensual relationship and the petitioner has been implicated on subsequent developments. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that she has instructions not to oppose the application submitted by the petitioner. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the case diary. Records reflect that although the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, a different stand has been taken by the victim girl/lady before this Court. In view of the relationship snapping or subsequent developments and there being no objection from 2 the de facto complainant, a lenient view is taken by this Court. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner viz., Imran Halder shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper 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. However, the de facto complainant within a week would communicate with the Investigating Officer of the case if she intends to not pursue the present case. Learned Magistrate or the jurisdictional court while considering the prayer for bail would take into account the written communication made by the de facto complainant/informant to the Investigating Officer of the case expressing her intention to not oppose the liberty granted to the petitioner. The concerned jurisdictional court would assess the same and thereafter consider the regular bail. In case such a communication is absent, there would be no bar for the jurisdictional court to take the accused/petitioner in custody. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 1846 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 3 All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)