Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2334/2026 of SUKANTA SARAKAR AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 25 August 2026
Item No.35 ssi CRM ( A ) 2334 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Gangaranpur Police Station Case No.296 dated 18.05.2026 under Sections 323/34/379/427/435/447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code
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.
25.08.2026 Court No.446 Item No.35 ssi CRM (A) 2334 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Gangaranpur Police Station Case No.296 dated 18.05.2026 under Sections 323/34/379/427/435/447/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 28 Arms Act. And In the matter of: Sukanta Sarkar and another. …. Petitioners
Ms. Jeenia Rudra Ms. Sukanya Banerjee
…for the petitioners
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee
…for the State
Ms. Rudra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case out of political rivalry and personal grudge. She submits that there is a delay of almost five years in lodging the FIR and that there is no explanation in the FIR justifying such delay. She further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring any material on record to connect the present petitioners with the alleged offences.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, produces the CD and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners. Indisputably, there is a delay of almost five years in lodging the FIR. There is no explanation offered in the FIR for such delay. There is also no seizure list available in the CD showing seizure of any article or empty cartridges, etc.
Considering these aspects and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not
2 necessary and that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, and shall also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023, and on the further condition that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight until submission of the report in final form.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)