31.08.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.25 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2292 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 31.07.2026 in connection with Jangipara Police Station Case No. 230 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/308(7)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 1461 of 2026) And In Re: Tamal Shovan Chandra … … Petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee … … for the petitioner Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee Ms. Riya Mahanta … … for the de-facto complainant Mr. Aniruddha Sarkar … … 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 Jangipara Police Station Case No. 230 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/308(7)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to collect any material linking the petitioner with the alleged offence. He also submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of a stray allegation. In such conspectus, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary. 2 3. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that, in the Memo of Evidence, it has been recorded that no material has been found evidencing the direct involvement of the present petitioner in connection with this case. 4. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant, in his usual fairness, submits that, although no amount has been credited to the account of the petitioner, he is very much involved in the alleged offence. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence. 7. In the FIR, it was alleged that one Ramesh Patra, taking the name of the petitioner and his associate, had extorted money and one bangle from the de-facto complainant. As noted previously, the prosecution has failed to bring any convincing material linking the petitioner with the alleged offence. All the necessary documents are in the custody of the Investigating Agency and as such, there is no possibility of tampering evidence. The petitioner has deep roots in society. Noting these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner, namely, Tamal Shovan Chandra, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly at Chinsurah and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till submission of the charge sheet. 9. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)