CRM (A)/3066/2026 of GADIMOL MURMU AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 September 2026

29.09.2026 Serial no. 26 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)

CRM (A) 3066 of 2026

In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Malda PS Case No.

of dated 20.05.2026 u/s 109(1)/117(2)/118(2)/3(5)/324(4)/329(3)/351(2) of the BNS.

-And-

In the matter of : Gadimol Murmu &Ors.

… Petitioner(s)

Mr. Kazi M. Rahman

… for the petitioner(s)

Ms. Rajashree Venkat Kundalia Mr. Harshit Jaiswal

… for the State-respondent(s)

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been foisted with the criminal case pursuant to the existing land dispute. State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. I have taken into account the statement of the injured as well as the complicity of each of the petitioners. Having regard to the injuries which have been sustained by the injured and the materials appearing in the case diary, I am of the opinion that the prayer for anticipatory of petitioner no.1 [Gadimol Murmu] and petitioner no.5 [Munshi Soren @ Sushil Soren] is rejected. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 [Mirita Tudu], 3 [Shibu Hembrom], 4 [Anil Kisku] and 6 [Dighi Tudu] are concerned, their prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 is Allowed. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner nos. 2 [Mirita Tudu], 3 [Shibu Hembrom], 4 [Anil Kisku] and 6 [Dighi Tudu] be released on anticipatory bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer of the case and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. As the investigation of the case is still in progress, the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 shall meet with the Investigating Officer of the case within a period of ten days from date and, thereafter, on all subsequent dates as would be fixed by the Investigating Officer of the case for the sake of investigation till the report in final form is submitted before the learned jurisdictional court. Additionally, the petitioner no.3 [Shibu Hembrom] and petitioner no.4 [Anil Kisku] shall stay outside the jurisdiction of Malda police station. However, they shall report to the I.O. of the case in terms of the directions passed above. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 6 are concerned, they shall make themselves available before the I.O. of the case as and when they would be required by the I.O. for the sake of investigation. Accordingly, CRM (A) 3066 of 2026 is Partly Allowed. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)