Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2309/2026 of BAPIKUL BISWAS AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 August 2026
Sl. No. 39 Ct. No. 446 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2309 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Palashipara Police Station Case No. 202/2026 dated 26.04.2026 under Sections 109/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/
31.08.2026
Sl. No. 39
Ct. No. 446
SG
[REJECTED]
C. R. M. (A) 2309 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Palashipara Police Station Case No. 202/2026 dated 26.04.2026 under Sections 109/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 118(1)/ 329(3)/ 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re: Bapikul Biswas & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Snehansu Majumder.
… … for the petitioners
Mr. L. Vishal Kumar,
Mr. Sanjib Das.
… … for the State
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. Liberty is granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioners to make necessary corrections in the cause title of the present petition.
2. Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, during pendency of this application petitioner no. 4 has been arrested.
3. In view thereof, this application so far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, stands rejected as not pressed.
4. Mr. Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners further submits that, there are sufficient materials against accused person no. 1, namely, Bapikul Biswas. He submits that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are women and considering the role attributed to them, benefit under Section 482 BNSS can be extended at least in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. He submits that charge-sheet has been submitted and, therefore, custodial interrogation of these present petitioners is not warranted.
2
5. Vishal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 180 BNSS which specifically mentioned these two women are allegedly took part in throwing brick upon victim. He submits victim suffered head injury and subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record, including the post-mortem report. Post mortem report suggests that victim died sustaining head injuries with intra cerebral hemorrhage. Although charge-sheet has been submitted liberty has been reserved to file supplementary charge-sheet. Considering all these aspects and considering nature and gravity of offence and considering the role allegedly attributed to the present accused persons and on further consideration there is still scope of further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheet, I am of the view, it would not be apposite to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)