Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9936 (CAL)

UJJALA RANI PAUL@UJJALA PAUL AND ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(A)/244/2026 · 2026-04-21

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

21.04.2026 Item no.21. Court No.5. KAUSHIK (Allowed) In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction CRM (A) 244 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No.105 of 2026 dated 07.03.2026under Sections 329(3)/115(2)/117(2)/118(1)/109/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of :Ujjala Rani Paul @ Ujjala Paul& Ors. ……Petitioners. Mr. Arijit Ghosh Ms. Angana Rakshit ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee Mr. Kallol Nag ……for the State. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, presented in connection with Sitalkuchi Police Station Case No. 105 of 2026 dated 07.03.2026, under Sections 329(3)/115(2)/117(2)/118(1)/109/303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Following the incident of a tussle, the present case has been 2 initiated. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State produces the case diary, and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the basis of the materials available in the case diary. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record, including the case diary. The nature of injuries, as reflected in the injury report appearing at pages 51 and 52, are simple in nature. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence.In view of the above, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not required and consequently, the application for anticipatory bailis thus allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, and on further condition that petitioner no. 2, Jadab Paul @ Jadop Paul, and petitioner no. 3, Tanmay Paul, shall meet the Investigating Officer once a week, and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The application being CRM (A) 244 of 2026 is thus, allowed. 3 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. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)