19.08.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.10 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2203 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 09.07.2026 in connection with Saktipur Police Station Case No.176 of 2026 dated 27.06.2026 under Sections 132/192/196(2)/197(1)(c)/296(b)/351(2)/ 352/356(2)/353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 856 of 2026) And In Re: Sabir Ahammed Biswas & Ors. … … Petitioners Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Mr. Syed Ali Afzal Ms. Rebika Sultana … … for the petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal .. ld. Public Prosecutor Ms. Piyali Chatterjee Mr. Supriya Mahajan … … for the State 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Saktipur Police Station Case No.176 of 2026 dated 27.06.2026 under Sections 132/192/196(2)/197(1)(c)/296(b)/351(2)/ 352/356(2)/353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that based on a suo moto complaint lodged by one Atanu Das, Officer-in-charge of Shaktipur P.S., District - Murshidabad, the present case was started. He submits that in the FIR, it was alleged that a sitting MLA, namely, Humayun Kabir while delivering a speech had used certain provocative words against police administration. However, the present petitioners have been implicated on the plea that they were also involved in the alleged offences. 2 Referring to the written transcription of the speech, he further submits that the said speech was allegedly delivered targeting a particular police official and not against any particular religious community. 3. Referring to the provision invoked by the prosecution, Mr. Mahapatra submits that the offence punishable under Sections 192/296/352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are all bailable in nature. He further submits that although the prosecution has invoked Sections 196(2)/197(1)(c)/353(2)/132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but the said Sections are inapplicable in the instant case. He also submits that this case, at best, be treated as a case of defamation.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners are having deep roots in the society and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. 4. Mr. Mahapatra also submits that the notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was issued to one of the petitioners and he has complied with the instructions contained in the same. 5. Referring to the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Mr. Mahapatra submits that if an accused person complies and continues to comply with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice, unless for the reason to be recorded that the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. He submits that if at any point of time, the accused person, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such order, as may have been passed by the 3 competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence referred to in the said notice. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that here no reason has been recorded justifying the arrest of the present petitioners and no competent court of law has ever passed any order empowering the concerned Investigating Officer to nab the accused persons. He submits that the Investigating Officer has collected the incriminating materials and therefore, in the present case, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not warranted. 7. Mr. Kallol Mondal, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submits that the statements made by Mr. Kabir, while addressing a public gathering, had the potential to disturb the communal harmony and public order. He further submits that the entire statement is directed against the police administration and the State. Many other cases of like nature are pending against Mr. Kabir and the present petitioners were involved in the alleged offences. He also submits that though one of the petitioners has complied with the terms of the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, yet if the circumstances satisfied any of the conditions contained in sub- section (1) of Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, then the police office has every authority to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, according to Mr. Mondal, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is necessary for a proper investigation. 8. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence. 4 9. In the present case, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons on the allegation that they were also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The prosecution case, however, is primarily founded upon the speech allegedly delivered by one sitting MLA, namely, Humayun Kabir. The principal evidence relating to the alleged commission of the offences is electronic in nature and is already within the reach and control of the Investigating Agency. There is no allegation that any incriminating article or other material is required to be recovered from the petitioners. In such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners does not appear to be indispensable for the purpose of investigation. 10. The Court, in addition to considering such sorts of fact, will consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicants, the possibility of influencing witnesses and the likelihood of fleeing from justice. As noted earlier, the electronic evidence is already within the control of the prosecution and there is no scope to tamper that evidence. 11. So, therefore, I am of the opinion that sufficient materials are not available in the case diary demonstrating the need of custodial interrogation of the present petitioners. 12. Therefore, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and that they may be granted anticipatory bail, however, subject to certain conditions. 13. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Sabir Ahammed Biswas, (2) Manirul Seikh, (3) Sakir Sk. (4) Golam Nabi Azad, (5) Munayem Sk. @ Mulayem Sk. & (6) Jahirul Sk., be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) 5 each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon, and shall cooperate with the investigation in all respects. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence, intimidate or induce any witness acquainted with the facts of the case. 15. It is clarified that in case of failure to comply with any of the conditions mentioned hereinabove, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to approach the learned court below for appropriate order in accordance with law. 16. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)