DL.2 28-08-2026 Ct. No.446 Saikat Mukherjee (Allowed) CRM(A)/2171/2026 SAHID RAJ @ SAYEED AFRIDI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. In Re: Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No.1543/2025 dated 27.12.2025 under Sections 318(4)/69/115(2)/74/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv. Ms. Madhurai Sinha, Adv. Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Bisal Roy, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. R.R. Mohanty, Adv. …For the State 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Despite service, husband of the de facto complainant is unrepresented. 3. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the prosecution case is that, by giving a false promise to marry the victim, the petitioner developed a relationship with her and exploited her, and in the course of such romantic association, the petitioner took an amount of almost Rs.80 lakhs from the victim. However, ultimately, he did not marry her, and such conduct of the petitioner compelled the victim to lodge the FIR, on the basis of which the present case came to be registered. Page 2 of 4 He further submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted. Referring to the report of the Investigating Officer, he submits that the concerned I.O. has completely destroyed the prosecution case. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to collect any material to show that the petitioner and the victim had any telephonic conversation or that the amount of Rs.80 lakhs was ever given to the petitioner. He further argues that, to substantiate the victim’s claim that they had physical relations at various locations, the victim failed to identify the places of occurrence of such incidents. He further submits that, taking note of the said report and considering that the investigation has been completed, it would not be proper to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner. 4. Further, he submits that, on a similar occasion, this Court and a Division Bench of this Court granted the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in favour of the petitioners therein. The orders dated 25th August, 2026 and 19th February, 2025, as cited on behalf of the petitioner, are taken on record. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing for the State, produces the Memo of Evidence and the Case Diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that sufficient materials have been collected by the I.O. in the course of investigation. He further submits that certain deeds have also been collected, which lend support to the prosecution case. He further submits that it would not be apposite to extend the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS. 6. Memo of Evidence as placed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 7. Heard learned advocates representing the respective parties and perused the Case Diary and other materials, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the medical report. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted. In the charge- sheet, it has been specified by the I.O. that he did not find any material to substantiate the fact that the petitioner and the victim had any telephonic conversation, or that an amount of Rs.80 lakhs or the sale proceeds from any plot or parcel of land were ever handed over to the petitioner. In the report, it has also been stated that the victim could not identify the place of occurrence where they had physical intimacy. In the FIR, it was alleged that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. Therefore, the physical intimacy was consensual. Now, the question as to whether the consent was obtained under misconception of fact and whether the case involves a false promise of marriage or amounts to a breach of promise of marriage is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. The prosecution has already collected the documents and materials, and the charge-sheet has been submitted. Page 4 of 4 9. Considering all such aspects, I am of the view that the privilege under section 482 BNSS may be extended in favour of the petitioner upon following conditions. 10. In the event of arrest, the petitioner namely, Sahid Raj @ Sayeed Afridi shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount and one must be local to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition laid down in section 482(2) of BNSS,. 11. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed and disposed of. 12. Case Diary is, however, returned. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities. 14. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.)