21.09.2026 Sl.No. 1 Ct. 39 Rejected Amalranjan In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRM (A) No. 2098 of 2026 In Re: An application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; filed in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No. 45 of 2026 dated 15.01.2026, under Sections 85/115(2)/ 118(1)/ 117(2)/ 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adding Section 4 of the POCSO Act, read with 9/10/11 of Child Marriage Act Corresponding to Special Case No. 45 of 2026. -And- In the matter of : XXX … Petitioner Ms. Minoti Gomes Mr. Imdadul Hoque ….for the petitioner Mr. Sauradeep Dutta …for the Defacto-complainant Mr. Aditya Tiwari Mr. Pritom Banerjee …for the State 1. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the victim was a minor and their marriage was arranged and took place 5 years ago. Now, she is major, she has 3 years old daughter and now she is residing with her parents in her parental house due to matrimonial wear and tear. She implicated 12 accused persons; out of them, 11 accused persons are on 2 anticipatory bail. She prays for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner on any terms and conditions. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim girl/defacto-complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that she was minor at the time of marriage. The petitioner was assaulted during her pregnancy; as such his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court as there are specific allegations against him. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the case diary as well as the memo of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner on the ground that the report regarding assault by her husband during her pregnancy clearly shows that sufficient material is available against the present petitioner; more-over he got re-married to someone else. 4. Memo of evidence and medical report filed by the State, are taken on record. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the case diary produced by the State as well as the injury report and memo of evidence, it appears there is sufficient material against the present petitioner; hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 3 6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioner is rejected. 7. Accordingly, CRM (A) No. 2098 of 2026 is dismissed. 8. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 9. Concerned Department is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. )