07.09.2026 Item No.1 Court No.551 (Bench ID:266058) CHC Allowed In The High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M.(A) 2373 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Medinipur All Women Police Station Case No. 23 of 2026 dated 02.04.2026 under Sections 85/ 115(2)/109(1) /316(2)/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Court of Learned District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur. And In the matter of : Mr. Suman Pratihar ...… petitioner Mr. Srinjay Sengupta, Advocate Mr. Saurav Roy, Advocate Mr. Ankush Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Prasenjit Jana, Advocate Mr. Sagnik Sinha Roy, Advocate .…for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Mitra, Advocate ….for the State Mr. Pinaki Roy, Advocate .…for the de facto complainant 1. Petitioner happens to be the husband of the de facto complainant. The case made out in the First Information Report reveals that the de facto complainant was married to the present petitioner. After such marriage, the petitioner went to her matrimonial home and started residing in the matrimonial house with the present petitioner. There she was subjected to physical and 2 mental torture and tried to kill the de facto complainant by throttling. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon on an agreement entered into between the de facto complainant and the petitioner in respect of two flats purchased in the joint name of the petitioner and the de facto complainant one at Medinipur and other at Kolkata. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the ATM card of the de facto complainant was kept and utilized by the present petitioner. He also questioned the validity of the alleged agreement between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner has been paying the ENI for the flats. 4. It is alleged by the learned advocate for the de facto complainant that the petitioner was forcibly evicted from the flat. The de facto complainant was not allowed to enter into the flat of which she is an owner of 50% share. 5. Learned advocate for the de facto complainant also submits that the alleged agreement was executed by the petitioner of the de facto complainant having no legal basis. Her signature on such agreement was obtained by practicing fraud and coercion. 6. Learned advocate for the State relies upon the various materials in the Case Diary. He submits that Section 318(4) of BNS has been added as the petitioner allegedly 3 committed the offence of cheating upon the de facto complainant. He strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 7. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials in the Case Diary, it transpires that although, the First Information Report was lodged on an allegation of alleged torture upon the wife on demand of dowry. However, the materials in the Case Diary go to show that disputes between the parties revolve round the ownership of the two flats at Medinipur and Kolkata. So far as the allegation of attempt of murder is concerned, I have gone through the injury report contained in the Case Diary. Injury report shows no apparent external injury seen on exposed part of body. The patient complained of pain over left ear. 8. So far as the allegation of cheating is concerned, although the de facto complainant has made out a case, her signature was obtained on agreement by practicing fraud but the said agreement annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner goes to show that the petitioner and her mother signed in such agreement on April 21, 2026. Moreover, there are no complaint with regard to the alleged forgery or cheating by the de facto complainant. 9. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. 4 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the materials in the Case Diary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner will be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, 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, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court. 12. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. 13. CRM(A) 2373 of 2026 is disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Digitally signed by CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Date: 2026.09.07 18:28:51 +05'30'