Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2146/2026 of SALMAN @ SALMAN KHAN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 August 2026
Sl. No.19 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. ( A ) 2146 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Market Police Station Case No.83 of 2026 dated 14.06.2026 under Sections
14.08.2026
Sl. No.19
Ct. 446/tkm
C. R. M. (A) 2146 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with New Market Police Station Case No.83 of 2026 dated 14.06.2026 under Sections 115(2)/118(1)/126(2)/140(3)/3(5)/351(3)/74 and 79 BNS 2023
And
In Re: Salman alias Salman Khan
… … Petitioner
Allowed
Mr. Soupal Chatterjee
Ms. Madhumita Chatterjee
Mr. Saif Ansar Ali
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Aniruddha Sarkar
… … for the State
Ms. Meghla Das
Mr. Sudeepto Kr. Basu
… … for the de facto complainant
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 the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case despite having no connection with the alleged incident. He further submits that the victim did not suffer any injury and that the present case has been lodged out of grudge.
2. Learned advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. Learned advocate for the de facto complaint submits that he has no objection if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, there is no injury report in the case diary. The alleged incident occurred in the presence of direct evidence. Noting this fact and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and that
2 the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Kolkata and also subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of BNSS 2023.
6. The application being CRM (A) 2146 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)