Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2212/2026 of SANKAR GIRI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026
Sl. No.46 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2212 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Narendrapur Police Station Case No.858 of 2026 dated 01.07.2026 under sections 126(2)/117(2)/109/356(1)/61(2)/3(5)
17.08.2026
Sl. No.46
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2212 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Narendrapur Police Station Case No.858 of 2026 dated 01.07.2026
under sections 126(2)/117(2)/109/356(1)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS 2023
And
In Re: Sankar Giri
… … Petitioner
Allowed
Md. Apzal Ansari
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta
Mr. Prasenjit Das
Mr. A R Khan
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Uttam Kr. Mandal
Mr. Kuntal Ray
Ms. Udita Mandal
… … 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, out of political rivalry and personal grudge, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. An altercation has been given a colour of such nature as to attract certain non-bailable provisions under the BNS, only to harass the present accused person. He submits that, in such conspectus, it would not be apposite to curtail the personal liberty of the present petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for bail.
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 CD 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 evidence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
2 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 also subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
5. The application being CRM (A) 2212 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)