CRM (A)/2161/2026 of SHANTANU MAJUMDER @ SANTANU MAJUMDER AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 17 August 2026

1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1989 Act‟) will not be applicable. He submits that, in the present case, from the FIR itself, it would be evident that there is a civil dispute between the petitioners and the complainant and it was the specific allegation of the complainant that the petitioners have allegedly constructed a boundary wall encroaching upon certain portion of the complainant‟s land. The complainant happens to be the owner of the land just adjacent to the petitioners‟ land. He submits that, taking advantage of the fact that the de facto complainant belongs to a particular community, the petitioners have been implicated in this case under the various provisions of the 1989 Act only to exert pressure upon the petitioners to settle the dispute that cropped up between them over the issue of the boundary wall of those two properties. He submits that, in a catena of decisions, it has been ruled that, if a prima facie case is not made out or if the offence is not committed within public view, the bar under Section 18 of the 1989 Act will not apply. To lend support to this contention, he cites certain decisions reported in 2019 (1) CHN 693 (Pradipta Biswas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.); AIR 2024 SC 557 (Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala & Ors.); 2025 INSC 390 (Deepak Kumar Tala vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.).

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioners on the basis of the materials on record. She submits that from the FIR it would be evident that the incident occurred within the public view. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of 1989 Act will apply.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record including the FIR and the statements recorded by the investigating officers in course of investigation. In the FIR it was alleged petitioners used to casteistly slur or abused the victim. No specific date has been mentioned. Admittedly, there is a long standing civil dispute between the petitioners and the complainant. In the case of Pradipta Biswas (supra) it was observed that refusal to deny the petitioner an order of pre-arrest bail under the perceived restriction under Sections 18/18A of the 1989 Act would be a denial of protection of personal liberty of the petitioner against frivolous and unjustified arrest. In the case of Shajan Skaria (supra) it is ruled that the restrictions imposed by the Section 18 of the 1989 Act would applied to those cases where prima facie material exists pointing towards commission of offence under 1989 Act. In the decision it was clarified that prima facie is a Latin term that translates to “at first sight” or “based on first impression”. The expression “where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint or FIR” should be understood as “when based on first impression, no offence is made out as shown in the FIR or the complaint”. Here in the entire FIR the averments have been made regarding long standing civil dispute and as stated in one portion thereof it was alleged that the petitioner had been continuously used casteist slur against the de facto complainant without specifying date and time of that incident. It was also not indicated whether these comments or abuse were made within public view. Taking note of these facts and circumstances applying the proposition laid down in the judgments in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to curtail the personal liberty of the present petitioners and benefit under Section 482 of BNSS can be granted in their favour.

4. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

5. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners viz., (1) Shantanu Majumder @ Santanu Majumder,

(2) Suchandra Majumder @ Suchandra Roy, and (3) Apratim

Majumder be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)