Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2327/2026 of LUTFAL HOSSAIN AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 27 August 2026
Sl. No.18 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2327 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No.362 of 2026 dated 09.04.2026 under sections 85/109/123 of the BNS 2023 and
27.08.2026
Sl. No.18
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2327 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No.362 of 2026 dated 09.04.2026 under sections 85/109/123 of the BNS 2023 and section 4
of the DP Act
And
In Re: Lutfal Hossain & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Allowed
Mr. A R Pati
Mr. Ashok Halder
Ms. Reshmi Mukherje
Mr. Avijit Chatterjee
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Subhasish Pachhal
Mr. Arka Naha
… … for the State
Mr. Souvik Dey
Mr. Saiful Alam
… … 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. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the present case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. He submits that there is a delay of five months in lodging the FIR. He submits that, following a matrimonial dispute between the victim and petitioner no. 1, the victim started living separately at her parental house and thereafter, suddenly, the present complaint was lodged, which is an afterthought. He further submits that the injury report does not lend any support to the prosecution case. He prays for pre arrest bail.
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary, memo of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
2
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the case diary, including the injury report. It prima facie appears that the main allegation is directed against petitioner no. 1, who happens to be the husband of the complainant, whereas the allegations against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are omnibus in nature. There is no allegation of any specific overt act against petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. However, certain incriminating materials are available in the case diary against petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, the prayer made by petitioner no. 1 is rejected.
5. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 viz. Jarina Bibi and Hamidul Rahaman @ Hamedur Rahaman shall 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 ACJM Chanchal Malda and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
6. The application being CRM (A) 2327 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)