Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3058/2026 of HIRAK GANGULY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 September 2026
29.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M ( A ) 3058 of 2026 Hirak Ganguly Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/
D/L 18
29.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (A) 3058 of 2026
Hirak Ganguly
Vs
The State of West Bengal
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of Electronic Complex Police Station Case No. 209 of 2025 dated 20.10.2025 under Sections 108/3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023.
And
In the matter of : Hirak Ganguly
……Petitioner.
Mr. Aniruddhya Bhattacharya
Mr. Suryana Sengupta
Ms. Bidisha Chatterjee
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Soumalya Dutta
…for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was an existing relationship which snapped and pursuant to which the lady committed suicide for which the petitioner has been foisted with a criminal case by the parents of the deceased.
2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and draws the attention of the Court to the dying declaration of the victim.
3. I have taken into account the diary note which has been the foundation of opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail by the State. I have also taken into account the post-mortem report.
4. So far as the issue relating to physical relationship is concerned the same is not surfacing in the post-mortem report.
5. Having considered the other issues which are concerned, I am of the opinion that custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
6. As such, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner, namely, Hirak Ganguly be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/arresting officer of the case on such terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper. This would be subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and/or under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
7. As the investigation of the case is in progress, petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer within a period of ten days from the date of the order and shall subsequently follow the Investigating Officer as and when called for till the report in final form is submitted before the jurisdictional Court.
8. Accordingly, CRM (A) 3058 of 2026 is allowed.
9. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
10. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)