Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/504/2026 of GYANADA BARMAN@JNANDA BARMAN AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 30 July 2026
SL No.8 Court No.11 (gc) (Allowed) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH
30.07.2026
SL No.8
Court No.11
(gc)
(Allowed)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 504 of 2026
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case No.442 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026 under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act,
2012.
And
In the matter of : Gyananda Barman @ Jnanda Barman & Ors.
- Petitioners.
Mr. Nilay Chakrabarty,
Mr. Sourav Lohani
….For the Petitioners.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP,
Mr. Debanjan Das,
Ms. Trishna Roy,
Mr. Shyamal Barman
… For the State.
Mr. Hillol Saha Podder,
Ms. Mousumi Das
…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. The petitioners pray for pre-arrest bail in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case No.442 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026 under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The police authorities have filed a pen drive with a photograph of the victim and the principal accused (minor), in compromising position. However, there is no indication that the said photograph was circulated via WhatsApp by any of the petitioners, who are the grandparents and uncle of the principal accused.
3. The learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that the victim has been threatened by the family of the principal accused after the complaint was made before the police authorities.
4. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for pre-arrest bail and produces the case diary and submits that that the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate implicates the grandmother.
5. Considering the age of the grandparents and the role of the petitioners against whom no allegations have been made, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed.
6. Accordingly, this Court directs that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The petitioner nos.2,4 and 5 shall meet the investigating officer once a week. All the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation. The petitioners will not enter into the jurisdiction of the Mathabhanga Police Station except for the purpose of meeting the investigating officer. The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners will not establish any contact with the victim and her family.
7. In default, the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail without further reference to this court.
8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
9. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)