Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2196/2026 of CHANDAN CHAKRABORTY AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 18 August 2026
Sl. No. 41 Ct. No. 446 SG [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2196 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 1168/2026 dated 01.07.2026 under Sections 329(4)/ 115(2)/ 109/
18.08.2026
Sl. No. 41
Ct. No. 446
SG
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2196 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 1168/2026 dated 01.07.2026 under Sections 329(4)/ 115(2)/ 109/ 76/ 351(2)/
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re: Chandan Chakraborty & Anr.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Avinaba Patra.
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee,
Mr. Arindam Banerjee
… … 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. At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press this application so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned.
2. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed as not pressed in respect of the petitioner no. 1.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case has been lodged to counter the case initiated by the petitioner against the husband of the de facto complainant. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case out of personal grudge and with a view to harass the petitioner. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS was sought to be served by the Investigating Officer. However, the de facto complainant was not available at her residence, and the notice was pasted at a conspicuous place of her house. He further submits that she did not respond to the said notice.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. There is a case and counter-case. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, and there is no material demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation of the present petitioner. In view thereof, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
7. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz., Tarun Chakraborty, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)