16.09.2026 Sl. No.999. D/L. (Allowed) Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRM (A) No.1815 of 2026 Subir Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal In re: An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with G.R. Case No.1955 of 2026 arising out of Chinsurah Police Station Case No.216 of 2026 dated 09.06.2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/324(4)/329(3)/336(3)/338/340(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chinsurah, Hooghly. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Krishan Ray, Mr. Sekhar Mukherjee, Mr. Anindya Chowdhury, Ms. Isita Kundu …for the petitioner Mr. Talay Masood Siddique, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Sujoy Sarkar …for the de facto complainant Ms. Shalini Bairagi …for the State Leave to delete the name of petitioner no.5 is granted who is presently behind the bar. In this application, the petitioners have prayed pre-arrest bail in connection with G.R. Case No.1955 of 2026 arising out of Chinsurah Police Station Case No.216 of 2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/324(4)/329(3)/336(3)/338/340(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. 2 Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are businessmen by occupation and also have close friendship and association with the petitioner no.1 who is an ex-serviceman. The dispute in connection with the present proceeding is purely civil in nature which pertains to partition and demarcation of an ancestral joint estate, which has been maliciously given a criminal colour by the de facto complainant. The petitioner no.1 is a bona fide, recorded co-sharer of the property (B schedule) and have acquired title legally through two registered Deeds of Exchange executed on October 4, 2024 from another co-sharer of the property, namely, Jesminara Begum, who has not been made an accused. He subsequently mutated his name in the L.R. record of rights. He further submits that a civil suit being T.S.103 of 2025 has already been instituted seeking a declaration of lawful co-ownership and also for passing preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds along with a prayer for injunction. In this case, the dispute escalated when the complainant and her associates attempted to forcefully lock out and dispossess the petitioner no.1 on March 9, 2025. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegations brought by way of the first information report inter alia to the effect that the de facto complainant and her siblings inherited valuable ancestral properties but the core of her allegation is that the petitioners and their associates, conspired to unlawfully seize these properties by manipulating her elder sister 3 Jasminara Begum, who is the other co-sharer of the property. Therefore, the proceeding suffers from intrinsic infirmities and is a clear abuse of the process of law and custodial interrogation of the present petitioners are not at all required when the civil suit is pending concerning declaration of title and interest in respect of the self-same properties. Therefore, it is a fit case where pre-arrest bail may be granted in favour of the petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the materials collected during investigation discloses that the other co-sharer namely, Jasminara Begum in collusion with the other co-accused person have sold the property to petitioner no.1 at a much lower price. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that sufficient incriminating materials are there which warrants custodial interrogation of the petitioners to unearth the truth during investigation. He further submits that even after arrest of co-accused Satya Ranjan Sil @ Sona Sil, the other accused persons are regularly threatening the de facto complainant for withdrawal of the case. He further submits that the petitioners have also been implicated under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and, as such, for the recovery and seizure of the fire arms, the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is required. I have gone through the FIR and also relevant materials available in the Case Diary. Having considered the same, it appears that the dispute between the petitioners are basically civil in nature and in respect of which the civil suit is already pending 4 and the documents in respect of which the present case is based are also the subject matter of scrutiny by the Civil Court. Therefore, custodial interrogation may not be required in the present case in respect of the present petitioners and, as such, I find that this is a fit case where pre-arrest bail may be granted in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners, namely, Subir Kumar Das, Biplab Singha, Tarak Biswas and Amit Saha shall be released on bail of Rs.20,000/- with two registered surities of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah and also subject to the other conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, CRM(A) 1815 of 2026 stands disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )