CRM(M)/2373/2026 of XXXX AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 9 October 2026

09.10.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.105

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Allowed C.R.M. (M) 2373 of 2026

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Salboni Police Station Case No. 255 of 2025 dated 21.09.2025 under Sections 137(2)/85/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and subsequently charge-sheet submitted under Sections 137(2)/85/80(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 9/10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (G.R. Case No. 2862 of 2025).

And

In Re : XXXX & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. Manas Das, Mr. Debarnab Adhikary

... For the Petitioners.

Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, APP, Mr. Snehasis Banerjee, Mr. Bibaswan Mukherjee

... For the State.

Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Subhrajit Dey

... For the de facto complainant.

Leave is granted to learned advocate-on-record of the petitioners to amend the cause title. Memo of Evidence submitted on behalf of the State be kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in custody for about a year, charge-sheet has been submitted and charges have already been framed. The present petitioners are allegedly the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS of the father- in-law, mother-in-law and one Santanu Mahato (neighbour). I have taken into account the post mortem report also. Having considered the period of detention of the petitioners and the time which will be consumed to take the trial to its logical conclusion, I am of the opinion that further detention of the present petitioners in connection with the instant case is unwarranted. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur. If on bail, the petitioners shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the district of Paschim Medinipur without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. The observations made above are only restricted for adjudication of the bail application and should not be considered a final opinion on the merits of the case.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2373 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)