Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2258/2026 of SRIMANTA GHOSHAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 August 2026
In The High Court at Calcutta Sl. No. 34 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Court No. 446 Appellate Side Moumita CRM ( A ) 2258 of 2026 In Re: An apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 858 of 2026 dated 01.07.2026, connected to G.R. No.
24.08.2026 In The High Court at Calcutta Sl. No. 34
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
Court No. 446
Appellate Side
Moumita
CRM (A) 2258 of 2026
In Re: An apprehension of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 858 of 2026 dated 01.07.2026, connected to G.R. No. 5409 of 2026, registered under Sections 126(2), 117(2), 109, 356(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
And
In the matter of : Srimanta Ghoshal
……Petitioner.
Md. Apzal Ansari,
Mr. Prosenjit Das,
Mr. Kunal Ganguly,
Md. Arshad Raza Khan,
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta
……for the Petitioner
Mr. Suman Chakraborty
…….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. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that, due to political rivalry and personal grudge, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. An incident of altercation has been given a colour of such a nature as to attract certain non-bailable provisions under the BNS, only to harass the present accused person. He submits that, in such circumstances, it would not be apposite to curtail the personal
2 liberty of the present petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the C.D. and other materials on record, including the injury report. Taking note of the nature of the injuries as reflected therein and in the other materials on record, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct witnesses, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that the benefit 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 ACJM, Baruipur, and shall also be subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
5. The application being CRM (A) 2258 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)