Nur Hossain@Nur Hossain Miah And ANR v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH

AT JALPAIGURI 16.12.2025 Court No.01 Item No.09 Avijit Mitra CRM (A) 830 of 2025 In Re:- An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;

And In Re: Nur Hossain @ Nur Hossain Miah & anr.

-Petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha ...for the Petitioners Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Chattu Roy ...for the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Sahebganj Police Station Case No.525 of 2025 dated 09.09.2025 under Sections 75/126(3)/351(3)/329(4)/64(1)/62/117(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the present application has been preferred. Mr. Guha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the present complaint had been lodged as counterblast to an earlier complaint lodged by the wife of the petitioner no.1. The petitioners have been falsely implicated and upon completion of investigation, chargesheet has already been submitted. In view thereof, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail on any condition.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes Mr. Guha's prayer and submits that specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners and there are strong incriminating materials on record against them.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

Records reveal that upon completion of investigation chargesheet has been submitted. However, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 64(1) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioner no.2. In view thereof, custodial interrogation of the petitioner no.2 is not necessary.

Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner no.2, namely, Latif Miah 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 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

However, there are strong incriminating materials on record against the petitioner no.1 and the ingredients of Section 64(1) of the BNS are, prima facie, attracted against him. In view thereof, I am not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner no.1 and his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 830 of 2025, is partly allowed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)