AD 5 August 25, 2026 Ct. 446 SG CRM(A) 2273 of 2026 Allowed An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Alipore P.S. Case No.100 of 2025 dated 27.07.2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(2)/340(2) of the BNS. And In the matter of: Mofidul Islam Laskar … petitioner Mr. Rohan Bavishi Mr. Sarbojit Ghosh … for the petitioner Mr. Amit Halder Mr. Jnip Bose … for the State Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had initially filed an application for anticipatory bail being CRM 1215 of 2026. Since the said application suffered from certain technical defects, the petitioner withdrew the same with liberty to approach the Court afresh. However, the order disposing of the said application did not specifically record that liberty had been sought to file a fresh application. Learned Counsel relies upon the judgment reported at (2017) 13 SCC 555, Rani Dudeja v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that where an application for anticipatory bail is withdrawn without inviting the Court to consider the same on merits, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is maintainable on the basis of changed circumstances and the principle of res judicata has no application in such a case. He, therefore, submits that the present application for anticipatory bail may be taken up for consideration on merits. 2 As the earlier application for pre-arrest bail was withdrawn without any strategic intent, and having regard to the proposition laid down in Rani Dudeja (supra), I am inclined to consider the present application for pre-arrest bail on merits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, according to the prosecution case, certain persons allegedly forged the two gift deeds and that the petitioner merely acted as an identifier in respect of the said deeds. He submits that the prosecution has already collected all the relevant documents in connection with the case and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS. Learned counsel for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. Memo of evidence filed by the State is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the case diary and other materials on record. The materials on record indicate that the prosecution case rests primarily on documentary evidence. The prosecution has already collected the original deeds as well as the deeds alleged to have been forged. Apart from such documentary evidence, no other material is forthcoming from the case diary to indicate that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. 3 Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer 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 BNSS, 2023 and on the further conditions that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once a week till submission of charge-sheet. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)