1 D/L 395 17.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 2200 of 2026 Basantibala Thandar @ Basanti Thandar & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 1194 of 2024 dated 24.10.2023 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the IPC, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. And In the matter of : 1. Basantibala Thandar @ Basanti Thandar 2. Sukla Manna @ Jhuma Manna 3. Arun Manna ……Petitioners. Ms. Minoti Gomes Ms. Sonali Das …for the Petitioners Mr. Lokesh Sharma Mr. Rishav Kumar Singh …for the State 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the married sister-in-law and the petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the petitioner no. 2. All the three petitioners surrendered on 2nd of February, 2026. It was brought to the notice of the Jurisdictional Court after they were granted bail on 16.03.2026 that at the relevant point of time the anticipatory bail applications of the accused persons were rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioners were taken to custody on 2 20.06.2026. Petitioners are in custody since 20th June, 2026. The husband and father-in-law has already been granted bail. Petitioners are similarly placed. As such, petitioners be granted bail. 2. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the conduct of the present petitioner are far from being satisfactory. Learned Advocate further submits that there were suppression of facts misleading informations and interpolations which have been observed by the learned Jurisdictional Court. The bail which was obtained according to the learned Advocate was obtained by fraud as it was never mentioned that the anticipatory bail applications was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. There are caustic remarks by the jurisdictional Court who subsequently dealt with whole of the issue from the date of granting bail initially on 16.03.2026 till the bail of the petitioners were cancelled by the said jurisdictional Court. 4. I have taken into account the observations of the learned jurisdictional Court and I am of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioners at the relevant stage cannot be approved rather required at the relevant stage to be dealt with a firm hand and the learned jurisdictional Court was correct in cancelling the bail and taking the petitioners to custody. 5. Petitioners, thereafter, are in custody since 20th June, 2026. So far as the merits of the case is concerned I find that the two accused persons being the husband and the father- 3 in-law who have been granted bail are similarly placed on facts so far as the present petitioners are concerned. 6. Having taking into account that the petitioners overall have been in custody for four months, I am of the opinion that further custodial detention of the present petitioners are unwarranted. However, I restrict myself from granting full relief to the petitioners. Petitioners, namely, 1. Basantibala Thandar @ Basanti Thandar 2. Sukla Manna @ Jhuma Manna 3. Arun Manna be granted interim bail till 31st March, 2027 on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Court deems fit and proper. 7. The conduct of the petitioners subsequent to their release would be assessed by the learned Jurisdictional Court. If the learned Jurisdictional Court on being satisfied is of the opinion that further coercive process would affect the liberty, in that case, the learned Jurisdictional Court would be empowered to confirm the interim bail which has been granted till 31st March, 2027. 1. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2200 of 2026 is allowed. 2. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 3. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 4. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)