Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2287/2026 of GOUTAM MAJHI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 31 August 2026
Sl. No. 21 Ct. No. 446 SG [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2287 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Santiniketan Police Station Case No. 85/2026 dated 29.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/
31.08.2026
Sl. No. 21
Ct. No. 446
SG
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2287 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Santiniketan Police Station Case No. 85/2026 dated 29.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 303(2)/ 76/ 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 672 of 2026).
And
In Re: Goutam Majhi.
… … Petitioner
Mr. Manas Kumar Das,
Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar,
Mr. Prabal Das.
… for the petitioner
Mr. Shankar Mukherjee,
Mr. Saswata Chatterjee.
…for the State
Mr. Sujoy Sarkar.
… for the de facto complainant
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. Affidavit-of-service as filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that this case has been lodged only to counter the case being Santiniketan P.S. Case No. 84/2026 dated 27.05.2026, lodged by the petitioner against the de facto complainant and her family members. He submits that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case out of personal grudge. He submits that the incident allegedly occurred following a tussle between the members of two families who are closely related to each other. He submits that the FIR itself indicates that there was no intention on the part of any of the accused persons to outrage the modesty of or disrobe any woman. He prays for pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate for the de facto complainant, submits that the petitioner is an influential person in the locality. He forcefully took the complainant to the concerned police station and kept her confined. The de facto complainant escaped from their clutches and thereafter lodged the complaint.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials, including the statements of the witnesses under Section 180 of the BNSS and also the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. The record prima facie suggests that the incident occurred following a tussle between two groups of people. On further consideration, the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, and there is a case and counter-case, , I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
7. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz. Goutam Majhi be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, Birbhum and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until submission of charge-sheet.
8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)