18.09.2026 Serial no. 02 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 39 CRM (A) 1947 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with G.R. Case No. 2416/2026 arising out of Gangnapur Police Station Case No. 138/2026 dated 03.06.2026 under Sections 69/74/115(2)/3(5) of B.N.S. pending before the Learned A.C.J.M. at Ranaghat -And- In the matter of : JYOTIRMAY MANDAL @ JOYATIRMOY MONDAL & ANR. … … Petitioners Mr. Arkaprabho Roy, Mr. Soujanyo Pattanayak, Mr. Debrup Chowdhury, Advocates … … For the Petitioners Mr. L. Vishal Kumar, Advocate … …For the State Ms. Sananda Bhattacharyya, Advocate ……For the De Facto Complainant. 1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is a Government employee and working at Barrackpore Commissionerate. He further submits that there was a love relation between the petitioner no. 1 and complainant and both are adults and they knew each other from facebook five years ago and have continued for romantic relationship. The allegation against the present petitioner no. 1 was that petitioner no. 1 established physical relation with her on 5th February, 2026 and 5th April, 2026 is out and out false in both days. The petitioner no. 1 was on duty on both days and the place of occurrence indicated in the complaint is far away from 2 the place of his duty. Petitioner no. 2 is mother of the petitioner no. 1 who is totally innocent. However, she has been falsely implicated. He prays for bail for the petitioners in any terms and conditions. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant submits that there were physical relations between the parties on the pretext of assurance of marriage but when the complainant went to the mother of petitioner no.1 for arrangement of their marriage, she assaulted and drove the complainant away from the home. Furthermore, the petitioners are constantly threatening the de facto complainant. She opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the memo of evidence and case diary and further opposes the prayer for bail. The learned Counsel further submits that the plea of alibi cannot be looked into at the stage of considering anticipatory bail. 4. Having heard the submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the memo of evidence, materials-on-record as well as case diary, this Court finds that there was a romantic relation between the petitioner no. 1 and the victim girl since last five years. Furthermore, the present petitioner no. 1 is a Government employee and working in Barrackpore Commissionerate. He also filed attendance registers indicating where he was posted, showing by way of supplementary affidavit that he was on duty on both dates as mentioned therein. The report submitted by the Investigating Officer indicates that no CDR has been found at the place of incident. On the first date he was present and on the second date he was not found in the office although attendance register shows otherwise. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioners is not necessary. 3 5. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, namely, JYOTIRMAY MANDAL @ JOYATIRMOY MONDAL and SONALI MANDAL is allowed. 6. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer on the terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. To instil confidence in the victim, the petitioners are restrained from entering into the jurisdiction of the Gangnapur Police Station save and except for investigation and attending court proceeding until further order. The petitioners shall provide the address of their residence as well as all their phone numbers to the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. 7. In the event the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions as imposed by this Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to pray for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in accordance with law. 8. The application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 1947 of 2026 is, thus, allowed. 9. All concerned parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 10. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)