Sohil Gazi v. State Of West Bengal
24.06.2026 Court No.28 Item No.326 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 1829 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Patuli P.S. Case No.248 of 2026 dated 18.06.2026 under Sections 78/137(2)/302/299/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of: Sohil Gazi ....Petitioner.
Mr. Samrat Chandra Mondal Ms. Rupsa Ganguli ...for the petitioners Mr. Krishnendu Bhttacharyya, ld. APP Ms. Rima Banerjee .... for the State Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi ....for the de facto Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
Report filed on behalf of the State is also taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is aged about 26 years. He was in love with the victim girl, who would be turning 18 years after a month. The mother of the victim girl did not like the relationship as the two belonged to different religions. Her hatred for the other religion is evident from her statements and conversations which have been recorded by the said victim girl. The video recordings of such conversations including filthy abuses inflicted upon the victim girl are placed in a pen drive, which is taken on record. After the mother of the victim abused her badly, she left her home on 14.06.2026. The
petitioner was not aware where the victim had gone. But, the police came and picked up the petitioner from his house. After searching his house, he was made to sit in the police station for long hours. In fact, he had to be sent to a hospital after he fell ill. It is learnt that afterwards the mother of the victim girl got hold of her and forcibly put her in a mental asylum at Maheshtala where she was tortured. On 17.06.2026, the victim requested a construction worker at the said place to lend his phone so that she could call up the petitioner's sister. She told the sister over phone that she was forcibly confined in an asylum at the behest of her mother and she wanted help. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner's sister went to Patuli Police Station to make necessary complaint.
She was referred to Baruipur and then to Maheshtala Police Station as the asylum was within its jurisdiction. The Mahestala police personnel asked her to visit the mental hospital. After she visited mental hospital, she was assaulted by the workers there. The persons at the asylum called up the local police Station. The police came and threatened and the petitioner's sister instead. These were video-recorded with a phone. The petitioner's sister moved a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court on 19.06.2026. But, she and her mother were detained by the police for all day and at the dead of night, they were informed that they were being arrested. However, formally only the sister was arrested. After their advocates went to the Police Station, they were also made to sit there for long hours.
Learned APP representing the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statements of witnesses including that of the victim made before the learned
Magistrate. In her statement before the learned Magistrate, the 17 years old victim had clearly stated that her mother had quarreled with her and abused her in vulgar language, which prompted her to leave the house. After sometime, when she was taken by the mother to a certain place. Some ladies in a vehicle came and kidnapped her. They said that the police had asked them to do some HIV and other blood tests. She was forcibly taken to a mental asylum where she was kept confined. She could tell others through a window, which prompted the police to come at the rehab centre. After the police went away she was chained and assaulted. The police came again. She told the police that she did not want to remain in the rehab or with her mother and wanted to go to her home. Upon enquiry, the police officer intimates through the learned APP that she has now been sent to a safe home being the CCI Home.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant/mother of the victim girl submits that the minor victim is under emotional influence of some others. That is why, she is not telling the truth. It is quite justified for the de facto complainant to be concerned about the well being of her child. Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary including the statement of the minor victim girl, where she has directed most of her allegations against the de facto complainant herself, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with investigation, shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses and shall meet the I.O. as and when required. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. The investigation of this case shall be conducted further under the direct supervision of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The presence of the I.O. is noted and is dispensed with. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)