Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 42502 (CAL)

SANJOY MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/3011/2026 · 2026-09-22

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.22. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (A) 3011 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Saltora Police Station case no. 84 of 2026 dated 05.06.2026 under Sections 341/323/325/384/387/406/408/506/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of : Sanjoy Mondal ……Petitioner. Mr. Samiran Mondal Mr. Nitish Samanta Ms. Agniva Mandal Mr. S. Mitra ......for the Petitioner. Mr. Subhendu Sinha Roy Mr. Anirban Kumar Banerjee ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been implicated in the instant case after there was change in administration. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the accusation which is initiated from the year 2016. Having considered the same, I am of the view that although investigation can continue but custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner namely, Sanjoy Mondal is allowed. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on such 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 2 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) 3011 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.)