Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2316/2026 of DEBILAL MURMU AND ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 31 August 2026
Sl. No. 45 Ct. No. 446 SG [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2316 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Md. Bazar Police Station Case No. 143/2026 dated 19.05.2026 under Sections 329(3)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/
31.08.2026
Sl. No. 45
Ct. No. 446
SG
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2316 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Md.
Bazar Police Station Case No. 143/2026 dated 19.05.2026 under Sections 329(3)/ 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 109/ 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
And
In Re: Debilal Murmu & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Dipankar Dandapath.
… for the petitioners
Mr. Parmanand Sharma,
Mr. Karan Dudhwewala.
…for the State
Mr. Arani Bhattacharya,
Mr. Tirthankar Murmu,
Mr. Arka Naha.
…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. Dandapath, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, informs that during pendency of this application petitioner no. 1 has been arrested.
2. In view thereof, this application so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, stands dismissed as infructuous.
3. Mr. Dandapath further submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case out of personal grudge. He submits that, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not warranted.
4. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for pre arrest bail.
2
6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials. Considering the nature of the injury as reflected in the injury report and the fact that the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
8. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners, viz. Raju Murmu, Rabin Murmu, Abhi Soren and Chhotu Murmu be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Birbhum at Suri 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.
9. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)