Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35232 (CAL)

INDADUL SK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2723/2026 · 2026-08-24

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.599. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 2723 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nakashipara Police Station case no. 511 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/308(5)/351(3)) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Indadul Sk. ……Petitioner. Mr. Sumanta Das ......for the Petitioner. Mr. Ronojoy Chatterjee Mr. Shayan Sachin Basu ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was husband of the elected Gram Panchayat who according to the prosecution case accepted sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for providing tender. It has been submitted that such tender was not provided to the complainant and the money was also not returned. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that there was a bank transaction. I find from the records of the case that the incident complained of is in the year 2023. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that although the investigation can continue but custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner namely, Indadul Sk is allowed. As such, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such terms and 2 conditions as he deems fit and proper 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. As the investigation of the case is still in progress, the petitioner, within a period of ten days from date, shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer of the case and thereafter, the Investigating Officer of the case, if required, would fix subsequent dates for presence of the petitioner for the sake of investigation. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 2723 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)