Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2341/2026 of PRAVAT MAJHI @ PROBHAT MAJHI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 August 2026
Sl. No.28 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2341 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Saktigarh Police Station Case No.176 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 under sections 341/323/325/386/427/506/34 IPC And In
27.08.2026
Sl. No.28
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2341 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Saktigarh Police Station Case No.176 of 2026 dated 25.05.2026 under sections 341/323/325/386/427/506/34 IPC
And
In Re: Pravat Majhi @ Probhat Majhi
… … Petitioner
Allowed
Mr. U S Chattopadhyay
Mr. R Tah
Ms. Trisha Rakshit
Ms. A Datta
Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty
Ms. Sadia Parveen
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Saurendra Betal
… … 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. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, due to political rivalry and out of personal grudge, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that, in the FIR, it was alleged that the incident occurred way back in 2021, whereas the FIR was lodged on 25th May, 2026, i.e. after the election result was published. Referring to Shaktigarh P.S. Case No. 125 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026, he submits that another case was registered against the present petitioner out of political rivalry and, in that case, the petitioner has been granted the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS. He further submits that, on 10.05.2026, another case, being Shaktigarh P.S. Case No. 137 of 2026 dated 10.05.2026, was registered for commission of offences which are bailable in nature and, in that case also, the petitioner has been granted bail. He prays for pre-arrest bail.
2
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary, memo of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the case diary. Undisputedly, there is a delay of five years in lodging the FIR. No injury report is available in the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
5. The application being CRM (A) 2341 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)