Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2300/2026 of SUBRATA ROY AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 31 August 2026
Sl. No.31 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2300 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.167 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 under sections 69/316(2)/351(2)/3(5) BNS 2023 And In
31.08.2026
Sl. No.31
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2300 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.167 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026 under sections 69/316(2)/351(2)/3(5) BNS 2023
And
In Re: Subrata Roy & Anr.
… … Petitioners
Allowed
Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty
Mr. H K Das
Ms. Tanushree Royh
Ms. T Panda
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee
… … for the State
Ms. Reshma Khatun
… … 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. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the main allegation is directed against one Mrinmoy Roy. The petitioners are the parents of the said Mrinmoy Roy. It is alleged that, with a false promise of marriage, the accused person developed a physical relationship with the victim and subsequently, the principal accused took Rs. 6 lakhs from the family members of the victim. He submits that the allegation is out and out false. The prosecution has failed to bring any material to substantiate such story that any amount of money has ever been handed over to the family members of the petitioners. In such circumstances, according to him, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. Khatun submits that she has instruction not to oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.
2
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the case diary. Undisputedly, the main allegation is directed against the principal accused. The petitioners are the parents of the principal accused. The prosecution has failed to bring any material evidencing any transaction of money between the victim or any family members of the victim and the principal accused or any family members of the principal accused. Considering this aspect and the role attributed to the petitioners, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.
4. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners namely, 1) Subrata Roy and 2) Ruma Roy shall 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 ACJM Ranaghat and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
5. The application being CRM (A) 2300 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)