29.09.2026 Sl. No. - 14 Court No.35 Rohan (Partly Allowed) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(A) 3038 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Goaltore Police Station Case No. 186 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 447/323/325/427/354/379/436/384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. -And- In the matter of: Aktar Ali Khan & Ors. …Petitioners Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra Ms. Ankita Dutta Ms. Sudarshana Srivastava Mr. Satyam Pandey …for the Petitioners Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta Mr. Sreyash Kr. Singh …for the State 1. Report submitted by the State be kept with the record. 2. In spite of service being effected upon the de facto complainant, none appears for the de facto complainant. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner emphasizes that overall, accusations are in respect of alleged offence under BNS and no offence as such under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. As such, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. 2 State of Kerala and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail on two counts. First, regarding the maintainability; and second, relating to the antecedents of the petitioner No. 1. 6. I have taken into account the case diary which also refers to incident of the year 2021. 7. The FIR has been registered on August, 2026. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that in the earlier case also, of the year 2018, the accusations against the petitioners involve offence under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Having regard to the overall materials available and on perusal of the case diary, I am of the opinion that in view of the spirit and ratio as decided in Shajan Skaria (supra), application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. 10. So far as petitioner No. 1, namely, Aktar Ali Khan, is concerned, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 11. So far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Tushar Kanti Panda and Ashajul Mallick @ Methra Mallick are concerned, their prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. 12. As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer of the case on such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper. This would be subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 3 13. As investigation is in progress, the petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer within a period of 10 days and on all subsequent dates as required by the Investigating Officer till the report in final form is submitted before the Jurisdictional Court. 14. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M. (A) 3038 of 2026 is disposed of. 15. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 16. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)