Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2215/2026 of Y HUSBAND OF VICTIM LADY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 28 August 2026
Ct. No.446 Saikat Mukherjee (Rejected) CRM( A )/2215/2026 Y HUSBAND OF VICTIM LADY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. In Re: Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in connection with Debra P.S. Case No.259/2026 dated 20.05.2026 under Sections
DL.21
28-08-2026
Ct. No.446
Saikat
Mukherjee
(Rejected)
CRM(A)/2215/2026
Y HUSBAND OF VICTIM LADY
VS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
In Re: Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in connection with Debra P.S. Case No.259/2026 dated 20.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/70(1)/ 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv.
Ms. Madhurai Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Bisal Roy, Adv.
…For the Petitioner
Ms. Arushi Rathore, Adv.
Mr. Saswata Chatterjee, Adv.
…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. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Despite service, husband of the de facto complainant is unrepresented.
3. Mr. Mahapatra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the husband of the de facto complainant had violated the wife of the present petitioner and, following that incident, Debra P.S. Case No. 391/2025 under Sections 394(4)/64(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS came to be registered. He further submits that, in that case, the husband of the de facto complainant and other accused persons filed applications praying for anticipatory bail on three occasions, and those applications were rejected. The last application was rejected with costs. He further argues that it is hard to believe that, after being sexually assaulted, a victim would wait for one month and, without approaching the police, lodge a complaint under Section 175(3) of the BNSS and subsequently, treating the said complaint as an FIR, on the basis of which the present case has been initiated. Further, he submits that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. If the present petitioner is compelled to remain in custody, that would amount to an abuse of the due process of law. He further submits that, taking note of these aspects, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
4. Ms. Rathore, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the Memo of Evidence and the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Memo of Evidence as placed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the medical report.
7. From the case diary and other materials on record, it transpires that certain incriminating materials are available against the present accused persons therein.
8. In view thereof, I am of the view that it would not be apposite to extend the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
9. The application being CRM(A) No. 2215 of 2026 is, accordingly, Rejected.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
11. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.)