Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4789 (CAL)

JUYEL SK @ TAHID UJJMAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/16/2026 · 2026-01-28

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28/01/2026 D/L – 36 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 16 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Murshidabad P.S case no. 556 of 2025 dated 13/6/2025 under sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/303/3(5) of the BNS. In the matter of: Juyel Sk @ Tahid Ujjaman ...Petitioner. Mr. Satarup Purakayashta Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty …for the petitioner. Ms. Manisha Sharma Ms. Pushpita Saha …for the State. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Perused the case diary and the communication of the Superintendent of Lalbagh Sub-divisional Hospital regarding the injury report of the victim. 3. It appears that there was fight between two relatives. The injury is recorded as simple. 4. Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall 2 cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once a fortnight till submission of report in final form. 6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)