25.08.2026 Sl. No. 19 Ct. No. 446 SG [PARTLY ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2268 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with G.R. Case No. 693/2026 arising out of Arambagh Police Station Case No. 156/2026 dated 18.04.2026 under Sections 109/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 124(1)/ 126(2)/351(3)/352/76/3(5) the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Sefaietulla Pike & Ors. … … Petitioners Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Ms. Laboni Sikder, Mr. Souvik Dey. … for the petitioners Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur. … for the State 1. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that from the F.I.R. itself, it would be evident that there was a long-standing dispute between the family members of the de facto complainant and the present accused persons. He submits that, due to personal grudge, the petitioners have been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioners may be granted pre-arrest bail. 2. Mr. Thakur, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the accused persons hurled acid at the victim, as a result of which the victim suffered burn injuries on her body, which is reflected in the injury report. He submits that in the present case, it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioners. 3. The memorandum of evidence as placed is taken on record. 2 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record, including the injury report. The injury report prima facie lends support to the prosecution case. The victim appears to have suffered burn injuries following the acid attack. A lenient view should not be taken in cases of acid attack. It appears that certain incriminating materials are available against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in the Case Diary. Considering the role allegedly played by petitioner nos. 1 and 2, I am of the view that they cannot be extended the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is, thus, rejected. 5. However, there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 3 and 4, and considering the role attributed to them, I am of the view that they are entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 is allowed. 6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners, viz., Ansara Begam Paik @ Ansara Begam and Reshma Begum be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)