Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2591/2026 of PETITIONER NO. 1 AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 28 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 416. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2591 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tiljala Police Station Case No. 598 of 2025
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.
28.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 416. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2591 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tiljala Police Station Case No. 598 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025 under Section 85/316(2)/351(2)/109/70(1)/61(2) of the BNS and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
And In the matter of : Petitioner No. 1 and Anr.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh
Mr. Subhankar Bose
……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Aniket Mitra
Mr. Md. Kalam
….for the defacto complainant.
Mr. L. Vishal Kumar
Mr. Anamitra Banerjee
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are brother-in-laws who have been foisted with the present criminal case. They are students who are innocent and are not staying at Kolkata and permanent resident of Jharkhand. Even in the date referred to in the FIR, the petitioners were proceeding for participating in examinations at Hyderabad. As such, they may be granted anticipatory bail.
2
Learned advocate appearing for the defacto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
State has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter of complaint which has been treated to be the First Information Report as well as the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. There is corroboration in such statement which is found in respect of two accused persons, particularly, with regard to the manner of commission of offence and the date of commission of offence.
Having considered that this is a case for anticipatory bail, at this stage, beyond the materials which have appeared, this Court do not intend to travel.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in CRM (A) 2591 of 2026 is dismissed.
Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record.
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.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)