CRM (A)/2228/2026 of RAYELAHAK MALLIK @ ROYEL MOLLICK ANR ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026

1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, after the change of regime, the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred on 6th May, 2021. He submits that the FIR was lodged on 23rd May, 2026, almost five years after the alleged incident. He submits that such delay has not been explained in the FIR and that the prosecution is also not in a position to justify such delayed registration of the case. He submits that, taking note of these facts, the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the present petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that, from a letter written by the Investigating Officer, it would be evident that the accused persons were politically influential and active in the locality and, owing to fear of retaliation, the de facto complainant was unable to approach the jurisdictional Police Station or initiate any proceedings against the accused persons. He submits that, for such reason, the complainant could not lodge the FIR immediately after the incident. He submits that, in the said incident, the victim suffered grievous injuries and sharp-cutting weapons were used to commit the offence. He further submits that accused no. 1 was arrested and, on the very same day, was enlarged on bail.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record. The communication between the learned Public Prosecutor and the SI of Police cannot be treated as evidence admissible in a court of law. There is no explanation in the FIR for the delay of five years in lodging the FIR. Taking note of this fact and further considering that the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of direct evidence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioners will not serve any purpose.

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 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition that they shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until submission of charge-sheet and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned police station without permission of the investigating officer.

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

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)