Anoyar Hosen Mandal And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal

28.05.2025 Sl. No.7 Sc/Naba C. R. M. (A) 1793 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 23.05.2025 in connection with Santipur Police Station Case No.565 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025 under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/117(2)/109/303(2)/351(2) (3)/140(3)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 1864 of 2025) And In Re: Anoyar Hosen Mandal & Ors.

... ... Petitioners Mr. Kaustuv Shome ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Md. Adil Badr, Mr. Asif Dewan ... ... for the State Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das, Ms. Sharmistha Das ... ... for the de facto complainant 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.2 has already been arrested. Accordingly, he has not pressed the application for anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner no.2. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. The allegation of assault against the present petitioners is false and fabricated. There are two brickfields of the present petitioners as well as the de facto complainant. There is an order of stoppage of the brickfields by the concerned D.M. This is the grievance against the present petitioners, hence, the false complaint/F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioners. He prayed for anticipatory bail of the present petitioners on any condition. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State authority submits that there are antecedents of the present petitioners for their involvement in the earlier criminal cases. The investigation is still going on. The allegation against the present petitioners is serious in nature, so at this juncture, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant raised strong objection against the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioners.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials in the C.D. and also considering the injury report as placed in the C.D., it appears to this Court that though the injuries reflected in the injury report are not so grievous in nature but considering the other materials and also considering the previous antecedents of the petitioners for their involvement in the earlier offences, it appears to this Court that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for better investigation of this matter.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is considered and rejected.

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)