Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2243/2026 of MALABIKA DEY AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 2 September 2026
Sl. No. 9 Ct. No. 446 SG C. R. M. ( A ) 2243 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bangur Nagar Police Station Case No. 360/2025 dated 16.07.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the
02.09.2026
Sl. No. 9
Ct. No. 446
SG
C. R. M. (A) 2243 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bangur Nagar Police Station Case No. 360/2025 dated 16.07.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re: Malabika Dey & Anr.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Soumya Nag,
Mr. Rajdeep Sengupta.
… for the petitioners
Ms. Shyanti Podder.
… for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. This application has been preferred seeking transit anticipatory bail. Mr. Nag, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that, based on a complaint lodged by Ms. Puja Banerjee, the case came to be registered at Bangur Nagar Police Station, Maharashtra. He submits that, in the FIR, it was alleged that a certain amount of money was invested by Ms. Banerjee for obtaining broadcasting rights; however, she did not get any return. He submits that both the petitioners are not named as accused persons in the FIR. In the course of investigation, on the plea that their names transpired from statements of the co-accused and certain incriminating materials were collected against them, they have been cited as accused persons in the charge-sheet. He submits that the petitioners want to approach the competent court having jurisdiction where the FIR was registered and apply for anticipatory bail, and for that purpose, they have to affirm and file the application. However, if, in the meantime, they are apprehended, they shall not be able to file such application seeking pre-
2 arrest bail before the competent forum. He submits that limited protection may be granted to the present petitioners.
2. Ms. Podder, learned Advocate appearing for the State, submits that subsequently it came to light that a certain amount of money was credited to the account of accused no. 1 and that accused no. 2 is allegedly a sleeping partner of the firm.
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. In a decision reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749 (Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the right of a High Court having no territorial jurisdiction over the area where the case was registered to grant transit anticipatory bail to enable an accused person to approach the jurisdictional court and pray for anticipatory bail. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the proposition laid down in Priya Indoria (supra), and in the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested for a period of four weeks to enable them to approach the appropriate forum with a prayer for anticipatory bail.
4. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)