Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9672 (CAL)

PETITIONER NO. 1 AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM (A)/1036/2026 · 2026-04-17

Jay Sengupta

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

17/04/2026 D/L – 9 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 1036 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Raghunathpur Women P.S case no. 02 of 2026 dated 12/02/2026 under Sections 126(2)/74/75/115(2)/117(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS and corresponding to Section 6F/341/354/354A/323/325/503/34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. In the matter of: XXX & Ors. ...Petitioners. Mr. Chiter Ranjan Chakraborty Mr. Sumit Banerjee Ms. Puspa Rani Jaiswara …for the petitioners. Mr. Sougata Mitra Ms. Soma Chakraborty Mr. Subhadeep Maitra …for the victim. Mr. Anwar Hossain Md. Yaser A. Ismail …for the State. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the relatives of the principal accused. They are in no way connected with the alleged offence of sexual assault. The FIR was lodged after three days of the alleged incident. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the principal accused was rejected by the learned Sessions Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statement of the minor victim recorded before the learned Magistrate and the injury report. 4. It appears that the allegation against the present petitioners is that they went and quarreled with the victim, her relatives and mother, after she made a complaint about molestation by the principal accused. The principal accused is not before this Court. 5. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the alleged roles ascribed to the present petitioners and the fact that they are female members of the household, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case and although I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, their movements shall remain restricted for a limited period. 6. In the event of arrest, the petitioners 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 petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioners shall stay outside the jurisdiction of Raghunathpur Women Police Station for a period of two months from date except for 3 attending the jurisdictional Court or casting vote in the ensuing Assembly Election. 7. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)