Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2295/2026 of JAHANARA BEGUM MIDDE AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 August 2026
Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.28 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2295 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 13.07.2026 in connection with Pursurah Police Station Case No. 158 of 2026 dated 07.03.2026 under Sections
31.08.2026
Ct. No. 446
Sl. No.28
akd
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2295 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 13.07.2026 in connection with Pursurah Police Station Case No. 158 of 2026 dated 07.03.2026 under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/115(2)/109(1)/352/351(2)/
76/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 1133 of
And
In Re: Jahanara Begum Midde & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury
Ms. Ritoprita Ghosh
Ms. Sulagna Sarkar
… … for the petitioners
Ms. Laboni Sikder
Mr. Souvik Dey
… … for the de-facto complainant
Mr. Somnath Adhikary
Ms. Madhurai Sinha
… … 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. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Pursurah Police Station Case No. 158 of 2026 dated 07.03.2026 under Sections 126(2)/118(2)/115(2)/109(1)/352/351(2)/ 76/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the incident occurred following a tussle between the members of the same family. According to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary.
3. Mr. Adhikary, learned Advocate 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.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant also vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence and injury report.
6. From the materials on record, it appears that the injuries are simple in nature. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence. Noting these facts, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Jahanara Begum Midde, (2) Roup Mallick & (3) Mahim Middye, 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, Arambagh, Hooghly and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till submission of the charge sheet.
8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)