Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38543 (CAL)

SAKIL MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM (A)/2398/2026 · 2026-09-08

Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

08.09.2026 Item No.3 Court No.551 (Bench ID:266058) CHC Rejected In The High Court at Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.R.M.(A) 2398 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Kumarganj Police Station Case No. 69 of 2026 dated 16.03.2026 under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and read with Sections 115(2)/117(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Sakil Mondal ...… petitioner Ms. Busra Khatun, Advocate Md. Kashif Alam, Advocate .…for the petitioner Mr. Amal Kumar Dutta, Advocate Mr. Karan Dudhwewala, Advocate ….for the State 1. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are neighbor. There were some altercations between the parties. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that petitioner and others were also assaulted by the complainant party. There was counter-blast case over the incident lodged by the complainant party. The investigation of the case has already concluded. She prays for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 2 2. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State relies upon the materials in the Case Diary including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 3. Perused the materials in the Case Diary. From the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS as well as the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, it appears that the present petitioner is alleged to have outraged the modesty of the victim. She was inappropriately touched by the present petitioner. 4. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 6. CRM (A) 2398 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Digitally signed by CHINMOY CHAKRABORTY Date: 2026.09.08 18:13:54 +05'30'