02.09.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.3 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. (A) 2315 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 14.07.2026 in connection with Barasat Police Station Case No. 196 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026 under Sections 126(2)/329(4)/117(2)/118(2)/109/308(5)/ 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. (G.R. Case No. 1872 of 2026) And In Re: Bulu @ Sanjit Chakraborty … … Petitioner Mr. Shyamal Kanti Banerjee Mr. Jayanta Datta Ms. Nipasri Tagore Mr. Ratan Pathak … … for the petitioner Dr. Pradip Banerjee .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah … … 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 Barasat Police Station Case No. 196 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026 under Sections 126(2)/329(4)/117(2)/118(2)/109/308(5)/ 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. 2. Mr. Shyamal Kanti Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case out of personal grudge. Referring to the complaint appearing at page 15 of the application, on the basis of which Barasat Police Station Case No. 554 of 2024 came to be registered, he submits that initially one case was lodged by the de-facto complainant and his men in the year 2024. He further submits that there has been a delay in 2 lodging the FIR and such delay has not been explained at all. In such conspectus, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence and the injury report. 5. Materials on record indicate that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, and no explanation has been offered to justify such delay. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence. Considering the nature of the injuries as reflected in the injury report and the role attributed to the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner, namely, Bulu @ Sanjit Chakraborty, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Parganas 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.)