Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/507/2026 of MANBHOLA RAY AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 23 July 2026
Court No.11 (GB) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at
23.07.2026
Item No.7
Court No.11
(GB)
Calcutta High Court
In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
CRM (A) 507 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No.207
of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/324(4)/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act.
And
In the matter of: Manbhola Ray & Ors.
….Petitioners.
Mr. Sudip Guha,
Ms. Sayantani Das,
Ms. Ankita Nag
…for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kallal Ghosh,
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dev,
Mr. Tapas Prasad
… 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. The petitioners pray for pre-arrest bail in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No.207 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 under Sections 329(4)/324(4)/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act.
2. The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces the case diary.
3. According to the petitioners, the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence as the first incident of theft, criminal trespass, etc., allegedly occurred on June 12, 2024. Although, there is an allegation that the petitioners kicked the pregnant daughter of the de facto complainant, no section with regard the grievous hurt or even simple injury has been added in the First Information Report.
4. Learned advocate for the State submits that kicking the pregnant lady is a serious offence.
2
5. It also appears that an allegation has been made with regard to possession of a firearm.
6. The complaint narrates that over two years the petitioners allegedly committed different kind of offences and the de facto complainant approached the police only in May 16, 2026. The nature of the offences are such that, custodial interrogation is not necessary.
7. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- 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 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The further condition is that the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dinhata police station.
8. In case the petitioners fail to adhere to any of the conditions as stated above, anticipatory bail stands automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.
9. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 507 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of.
10. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)