Sanjay Pramanik @ Sanjoy Pramanik And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal
13.05.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Item No.DL38 Court No. 28 Asraf, AR(Ct.) REJECTED CRM (A) 1500 of 2025 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Gazole Police Station case no.1072 of 2024 dated 26.11.2024 under Sections 109, 115(2), 117(4), 118(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 326(g) and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-ANDIn the matter of :
1. SANJAY PRAMANIK @ SANJOY PRAMANIK
2. DHANANJAY PRAMANIK
3. PRAMANIK GOLAPCHAND @ GOLAP CHAND PRAMANIK
4. BARKA MARDI ......Petitioners For the Petitioners :
Mr. Md. Wasim Akram .....Advocate For the State :
Mr. Bitasok Banerjee Ms. Debadrita Mondal .....Advocates Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The father of the present petitioner nos.1 and 2 was beaten up severely by the present de facto complainant on 25.11.2024. All this was over a land dispute. He was admitted in hospital and discharged on 26.11.2024 at 12 PM. Yet the FIR falsely alleged that the said father of the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 was also an assailant in the instant case. The said father of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the injury report present at pages 58 and 59 of the case diary. Three persons were injured. A co-accused, Swapan Tudu, standing on the same footing as the present petitioners, was refused the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court on 06.02.2025 in CRM(A) 329 of 2025. Independent witnesses stated that the petitioners were the assailants. Considering the nature of injury inflicted, the alleged role attributed to the present petitioners and the fact that the anticipatory bail prayer of a similarly circumstanced coaccused was rejected by this Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 1500 of 2025 is rejected.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
( Jay Sengupta, J. )