Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 42489 (CAL)

KANCHAN BOURI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/2997/2026 · 2026-09-21

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

21.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.35. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 2997 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Raniganj Police Station case no. 265 of 2026 dated 07.07.2026 under Sections 103(1)/115(2)/333/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Kanchan Bouri ……Petitioner. Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Saibal Krishna Dasgupta Mr. Aritra Roy ......for the Petitioner. Mr. Dr. Pradip Banerjee, Ld. APP Mr. Prantik Sarkar Mr. Jnip Bose ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a senior citizen who has been foisted with the present criminal case because of disciplining the neighbour. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the post-mortem report as well as the statement of the daughter of the deceased. Having considered the overall circumstances in the background of the present case, I am of the opinion that custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner namely, Kanchan Bouri is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such 2 terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is still in progress, the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of ten days and thereafter, on all subsequent dates fixed by the Investigating Officer of the case for the sake of investigation till the report in final form is submitted before the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, CRM (A) 2997 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)