Calcutta High Court

CRM (A)/2671/2026 of PARITOSH GHOSH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 15 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

no. 177 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM ( A ) 2671 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Kaliachak PS case no. 661 of 2026 dated 19.05.2026 u/s 85/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/92/110/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

15.09.2026 Serial no. 177 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)

CRM (A) 2671 of 2026

In re : An Application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Kaliachak PS case no.

of dated 19.05.2026 u/s 85/115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/92/110/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with sections 3/4 of the DP Act.

-And-

In the matter of : Paritosh Ghosh

… Petitioner(s)

Mr. Kalidas Saha Ms. Khushi Mollick Mr. Pikesh Kumar Chauhan

… for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Madan Mohan Roy Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh

… for the State-respondent(s)

Learned advocate for the State has produced the case diary. The case diary do not reflect any injury sustained by the victim. There is a matrimonial dispute pursuant to which the present case was initiated. The accusation of miscarriage is over there also. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge reflect that the medical documents furnished before the court depicts that there were tumoural growth. As a consequence of which still born baby was born. There are medical reports in the case diary which do not portray any transparent picture before this court. Having considered the fact that the case arose out of a matrimonial dispute and that other injury reports relating to nature of the allegations are absent in the case diary, I am of the opinion that custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is Allowed. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner [Paritosh Ghosh] 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 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. Accordingly, CRM (A) 2671 of 2026 is disposed of.

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.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead