14.09.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.5 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 2293 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 09.07.2026 in connection with Harirampur Police Station Case No. 160 of 2026 dated 10.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/74/351(3)/64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 637 of 2026) And In Re: Tarek Anowar @ Taris Anowar … … Petitioner Mr. Kaushik Choudhury … … for the petitioner Mr. Raja Biswas … … for the de-facto complainant Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary … … 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 Harirampur Police Station Case No. 160 of 2026 dated 10.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/74/351(3)/64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Mr. Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that there was a love affair between the victim and the petitioner and, hence, the relationship was consensual. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to comply with all the terms and conditions that may be imposed upon him by this Court, if his prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. He also submits that the petitioner is agreeable to live outside the jurisdiction of the concerned police station. In such conspectus, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary and the petitioner may be granted pre-arrest bail. 2 3. Mr. Tiwary, 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. Referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, he submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioner. Hence, according to him, this is not a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 4. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant, also vehemently opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail made on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner barged into the room of the victim and forcibly violated her. He further submits that if the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is allowed, then the same will send a wrong message to the society. 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 and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and nature and the gravity of the offence and on further consideration, that certain materials are available against the petitioner in the case diary, I am of the opinion that it would not be apposite to grant him pre-arrest bail. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 9. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)