Sanjay Halder @ Sanjay Haldar v. State Of West Bengal

26.05.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (D/L 49) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct. No.7 Vacation Bench (Allowed) C.R.M.(A) 1518 of 2026 (S.M) (B.K.N) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Palashipara Police Station Case No. 140 of 2026 dated 17.03.2026 under Sections 324(4)/329(3)/351(2)/326(g)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta at Nadia in S.L. No. 557 of 2026.

In the matter of : Sanjay Halder @ Sanjay Haldar ... Petitioner Mr. Amanul Islam, Mr. Sourav Mukherjee ... for the petitioner Mr. Pritam Roy, Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya ... for the State

1. Mr. Amanul Islam, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. and that such delay has not been properly explained. He further submits that there were property-related disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant and that such disputes have led to the implication of the present petitioner in the instant case, giving an accidental event the colour of a criminal offence. He also submits that the other accused persons have been granted the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia. It is further submitted that it would be unjust to compel the present petitioner to suffer jail custody.

2. Mr. Pritam Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail on the

basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the main allegation is directed against the present accused person.

3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.

4. Perused the materials on record.

5. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. and it is reflected therefrom that there is a longpending dispute between the present accused person and the de facto complainant. The other co-accused persons have already been granted such benefit. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can also be extended to the present petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for the anticipatory bail is allowed.

7. The application being CRM(A) 1518 of 2026 is disposed of.

8. In view of the above, it is ordered 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 Rs. 5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer ,on further consideration that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week till the submission of the charge sheet or until further order.

9.

The Arresting Officer is hereby directed to act upon the server copy or certified copy of this order.

10. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)