CRM (A)/2318/2026 of SK ROHIT ALI AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 8 September 2026

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Contai Woman Police Station Case No. 06 of 2026 dated 31.01.2026 under Sections 109/115(2)/126(2)/304(2)/351(2)/74/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the instant case has been initiated to counter Contai Police Station Case No. 28 of 2026 dated 25th January, 2026 initiated against the de-facto complainant and his associates. He further submits that in the FIR, it was mentioned that the incident allegedly occurred on 25th January, 2026 and on the very day, the petitioners lodged another FIR. However, to counter this case, almost five days after the alleged incident, the instant case has been lodged.

3. He also submits that following the incident, which allegedly occurred in the year 2023, a case was lodged against one Subhadeep Giri under Sections 376(2)(n)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that Subhadeep Giri has been enlarged on bail in that case. Subsequently, two other cases were lodged against said Subhadeep and in both the cases, final reports have been filed resulting in closure of the said cases. He submits that out of personal grudge and to counter the case lodged by the petitioners herein, the present case has been registered.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that Subhadeep Giri and three other accused persons have preferred a revisional application being CRR 118 of 2026. Referring to an order dated 1st April, 2026 passed in that revisional application, direction was given upon the opposite party no.2/de-facto complainant, not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner therein. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the interim order is still in operation till date. He submits that some of the accused persons are enjoying the interim order, whereas the present petitioners, who were allegedly associates of said Subhadeep Giri, have been implicated in this case. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary.

5. Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record.

6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence, injury report and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

7. The injury report suggests that the injuries are simple in nature. There are case and counter-case between the parties. There is a long standing dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role allegedly played by the petitioners, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and that they may be granted anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Sk. Rohit Ali, (2) Sk. Ahid Uddin & (3) Raj Adhikari, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

10. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)