Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2265/2026 of DILIP MALLICK AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026
Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.4 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. ( A ) 2265 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code) filed on 10.07.2026 in connection with Sandeshkhali Police
17.08.2026
Ct. No. 446
Sl. No.4
akd
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. (A) 2265 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code) filed on 10.07.2026 in connection with Sandeshkhali Police Station Case No. 310 of 2026 dated 27.05.2026
under Sections 427/448/379/384/307/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (G.R. Case No. 3129 of 2026)
And
In Re: Dilip Mallick & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Arijit Ganguly
… … for the petitioners
Dr. Pradip Banerjee .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Arijit Banik
… … 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. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with Sandeshkhali Police Station Case No. 310 of 2026 dated 27.05.2026 under Sections 427/448/379/384/307/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, due to political grudge, the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged almost 2½ years after the date of the alleged incident. Accordingly, he submits that, considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein.
2
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record, including the injury report.
5. The injury report suggests that the injuries are simple in nature. The incident allegedly occurred in presence of direct evidence. Noting these facts, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and that they may be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Dilip Mallick, (2) Pintu Basu @ Pintu Bosu, (3) Gour Ray, and (4) Mantu Maity, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas, and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)