17.08.2026 Sl.No. 44 Ct. 39 rejected (Susanta) In The High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRM (A) No. 2050 of 2026 In Re: An application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Manikchak Police Station Case No. 919 of 2025 dated 30.12.2025 under Sections 85/123/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to GR Case no. 2258 of 2026. -And- In the matter of : Anitalata Saha @ Anitalata Poddar @ Kanak Lata Saha … Petitioner Mr. S. Rout, Ms. Sudehsna Maji, ….for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary, ……..for the State. 1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for anticipatory bail on the second occasion due to change of circumstances as Charge-sheet has been submitted. One accused person has been granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 and the other two co- accused persons have been granted bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner is also standing on the same footing and he prays for anticipatory bail as the present petitioner is a female. 2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner and submits that her prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the 2 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits and after sufficient materials established against the petitioner, a Charge-sheet was also submitted against her. 3. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials available on record as well as the Case Diary particularly the Statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the medical documents, this Court finds that those documents indicate the petitioner’s involvement with an allegation that she was caught hold and the present petitioner and her mother poured rat poison into her month with intention to kill her and she had remained admitted in the hospital for three days. 4. Having regard to the overall consideration of the materials and the facts of earlier rejection by Co-ordinate Bench, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory of the petitioner. 5. Memo of evidence filed is taken on record. 6. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. 7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 8. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )