Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2227/2026 of SATYAM MANDAL @ SATYEN MONDAL @ SATYAM MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 17 August 2026
Sl. No. 59 Ct. No. 446 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2227 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. 641/2026 dated 26.04.2026 under Sections 329(2)/64(1)/79 of
17.08.2026
Sl. No. 59
Ct. No. 446
SG
[REJECTED]
C. R. M. (A) 2227 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. 641/2026 dated 26.04.2026 under Sections 329(2)/64(1)/79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re: Satyam Mandal @ Satyen Mondal @ Satyam Mondal.
… … Petitioner
Mr. Md. Wasim Akram,
Mr. Anwar Hossain.
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Madan Mohan Roy,
Ms. Nupur Chaudhuri.
… … 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 appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the records and the evidence collected by the prosecution suggest that the victim was a consenting party. However, subsequently, she took a U-turn and lodged a complaint against the petitioner. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the basis of the materials available therein.
3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record, including the statements of the victim and other witnesses recorded in the course of investigation. On perusal
2 thereof, it appears that several incriminating materials are available against the petitioner in the case diary.
4. In view thereof, I am of the view it would not be appropriate to extend the benefit under Section 482 of BNSS in favour of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)