Subrata Nayak And ANR. v. State Of West Bengal

31.03.2026 Court No.28 Item No.48 ssi CRM (A) 514 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 405 of 2025 dated 01.11.2025 under Sections 329 (3)/115(2)/117(2)/74/351(2)/3(5) of the BNS 2023. And In the matter of: Subrata Nayak & another.

.... Petitioners Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Triparna Roy ...for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. APP Mr. Arani Bhattcharyya ...for the State Mr. Kanailal Samanta Mr. Jakir Hossain ...for the de facto Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. There is a delay of about 11 days in lodging the FIR. There are civil disputes present between the adverse parties. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he had been arrested during pendency of the proceeding. Earlier, his application for anticipatory bail was not pressed. Four other accused persons have also been arrested. Charge sheet has been submitted. Two co-accused were arrested and two others have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the statements of the witnesses and the FIR lodged by the injured victim. He refers to the injury report and the medical documents present in the case diary. Several injuries were inflicted on the victim. Two stitches were given on the forehead.

There was a serious wound on the backside which required five stitches for repair. There were other injuries inflicted on different parts of the body. The statements of witnesses, including that of the victim, clearly implicate the present petitioners as having inflicted blows on vital parts of the body, like the head. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this is to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)